REPORT OF THE FIRST SESSION OF THE WORLD URBAN … · REPORT OF THE FIRST SESSION OF THE WORLD URBAN ... Transport and Urban Development, ... The first session of the World Urban

UN-HABITAT

REPORT OF THE FIRST SESSION OF THE WORLD URBAN FORUM

Nairobi, 29 April – 3 May 2002

i

CONTENTS

Chapter Page

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS 1

A.Opening of the session 1B. Attendance 2C. Establishment of an Advisory Group 2D. Adoption of the agenda of the World Urban Forum 3E. Objectives of and working arrangements for the World Urban Forum 3F. Thematic Dialogues 3G. Dialogues on sustainable urbanization 5

III. PROVISIONAL AGENDA AND OTHER ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE SECOND SESSION OF THE WORLD URBAN FORUM 6

IV. ENDORSEMENT OF THE REPORT OF THE SESSION 6

V. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION 6

Annexes

I. REPORTS OF DIALOGUES I - THEMATIC ISSUES 7

(1) Global Campaign on Urban Governance 8(2) Cities without slums 11(3) Decentralization 14(4) City-to city cooperation 16(5) International role of NGO's 19(6) Global Campaign on Secure Tenure 21(7) Monitoring and assessment 24

II. REPORTS OF DIALOGUES II – SUSTAINABLE URBANIZATION 27

(1) Introductory dialogue 28(2) Sustainability of cities 31(3) Role of cities in sustainable development 34(4) Rural dimension of sustainable urban development 36(5) Management of the HIV/AIDS pandemic at the local level 38(6) Pro-poor water and sanitation for cities 41

III. CONCLUSIONS BY THE CHAIR OF DIALOGUES II ON SUSTAINABLE URBANISATION 43

IV. OBJECTIVES OF AND ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE WORLD URBAN FORUM 47

V. SUMMARIES OF STATEMENTS MADE AT THE OPENING SESSION 50

A. Opening remarks by Hon. Mrs. Sankie D. Mthembi-Mahanyele, Minister for Housing of the Republic of South Africa and Chair of the first session of the World Urban Forum 50

ii

B. Statement by Mrs. Anna K. Tibaijuka, Executive Director of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme, UN-HABITAT 50

C. Inaugural address by H.E. Daniel Toroitich arap Moi, President of the Republic of Kenya 51

D. Video message from the Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ms. Louise Fréchette 52

E. Statement by Mr. Klaus Töpfer, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme 53

F. Statement by Mr. Joan Clos, Mayor of Barcelona and Chair of the United Nations Advisory Committee of Local Authorities 54

G. Statement by Mr. John W. Flora, Director, Transport and Urban Development, World Bank. 54

H. Statement by Mr. Arputham Jockin, President of the National Slum Dwellers Federation of India. 55

I. Statement by H.E. Germàn Garcia-Duràn, Permanent Representative of Ambassador of Colombia to UN- HABITAT and Chair of the Group of 77 (Nairobi Chamber) 55

J. Statement by H.E. Mr. Luis F. Garcia Cerezo, Permanent Representative ofSpain to UN-HABITAT on behalf of the European Union 56

VI. SUMMARIES OF STATEMENTS MADE AT THE CLOSING SESSION 57

A. Statement by the Hon. Mr. Sören Häggroth, State Secretary for Housing andDeputy Minister of Finance of Sweden, Co-Chair of the first session of the WorldUrban Forum 57

B. Statement by Hon. Mrs. Sankie D. Mthembi-Mahanyele, Minister for Housing of the Republic of South Africa, Chair of the first session of the World Urban Forum 57

C. Statement by Mrs. Anna K. Tibaijuka, Executive Director, United Nations Human Settlements Programme, UN-HABITAT 58

VII. LIST OF PAPERS BEFORE THE FIRST SESSION OF THE WORLD URBAN FORUM 60

1

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The World Urban Forum was organized and convened by the Executive Director of the UnitedNations Human Settlements Programme, UN-HABITAT, pursuant to paragraph 10 of resolution 18/5 ofthe Commission on Human Settlements in which the Commission requested the Executive Director “topromote a merger of the Urban Environment Forum and the International Forum on Urban Poverty intoa new urban forum, with a view to strengthening the coordination of international support to theimplementation of the Habitat Agenda.” Subsequently, the United Nations General Assembly decided,in its resolution 56/206, that the Forum would be a “non-legislative technical forum in which experts canexchange views in the years when the Governing Council of the United Nations Human SettlementsProgramme does not meet.” At the same session, the General Assembly, in paragraph 7 of its resolution56/205, encouraged local authorities and other Habitat Agenda partners to participate, as appropriate, inthe World Urban Forum in its role as an advisory body to the Executive Director of UN-HABITAT.

II. ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS

A. Opening of the session

2. The first session of the World Urban Forum was held at the headquarters of the United NationsHuman Settlements Programme, UN-HABITAT, in Nairobi, Kenya from 29 April to 3 May 2002. Thesession was opened on 29 April 2002 at 11 a.m. by the Chair of the World Urban Forum, Ms. Sankie D.Mthembi-Mahanyele, the Minister for Housing of South Africa. She welcomed participants to the sessionand extended a special welcome to the President of Kenya, Mr. Daniel Toroitich arap Moi. A summaryof her opening remarks is provided in annex V below.

3. The President of the Nairobi Staff Union, Mr. Markandey Rai, addressed the participants beforeintroducing the United Nations Staff Choir, the Songbirds, which entertained the participants. This wasfollowed by a skit presented by Nairobi slum dwellers and a symbolic candle - light procession by SlumDwellers International.

4. The Executive Director of UN-HABITAT, Mrs. Anna K. Tibaijuka, then delivered a policystatement. A summary of her statement appears in annex V below.

5. The President of Kenya, Mr. Daniel Toroitich arap Moi then addressed the World Urban Forumand inaugurated the session. A summary of his statement is provided in annex V below.

6. The Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ms. Louise Fréchette, addressed the sessionthrough a video message. A summary of her statement appears in annex V below.

7. This was followed by statements from the following key note speakers:

(a) Mr. Donald Kaniaru, on behalf of Mr. Klaus Toepfer, Executive Director of theUnited Nations Environment Programme;

(b) Mr. Joan Clos, the Mayor of Barcelona, and Chairman of the United NationsAdvisory Committee of Local Authorities;

(c) Mr. John W. Flora, Director, Transport and Urban Development, World Bank;

(d) Mr. Arputham Jockin, President of the National Slum Dwellers Federation of India;

(e) The Chair of the Group of 77 (Nairobi Chapter), Mr. Germán García-Gurán,Permanent Representative of Colombia to UN-HABITAT;

(e) The representative of the European Union (Nairobi Chapter), Mr. Luis F. GarcíaCerezo, Permanent Representative of Spain to UN-HABITAT.

2

8. Summaries of the above-mentioned speeches are provided in annex V.

B. Attendance

9. The first session of the World Urban Forum was attended by 1,195 participants as per the tablebelow:

Attendance at the First Session of the World Urban Forum, Nairobi, 29 April – 3 May 2002:

I No. of CountriesGovernment participants

81376

II

No. of local authoritiesLocal authorities participants

3994

III

No. of United Nations organizationsUnited Nations Participants

1954

IV

No. of countries represented by parliamentariansParliamentarian participants

1131

VProfessional and research institutionsProfessionals and research participants

3083

VI

Private companiesPrivate sector participants

2432

VII

No. of non-governmental organizationsNon-governmental organization participants

124355

VIII

No. of foundationsFoundation participants

69

IX

No. of intergovernmental organizationsIntergovernmental organizations participants

510

XOther participants 14

XI

No. of media organizationsMedia participants

4497

XII

UN-HABITAT participants 40

TOTAL NO. OF PARTICIPANTS 1,195

3

10. The list of participants is contained in document HSP/WUF/1/INF/11/Rev.1.

C. Establishment of an Advisory Group

11. At its first plenary meeting, the Chair, on behalf of the Executive Director of UN-HABITAT,announced the names of the persons who would constitute the Advisory Group for the first session of theWorld Urban Forum and who would advise and assist the Executive Director with the organization,management and conduct of the meetings of the session. These were the following:

(a) Mrs. Sankie D. Mthembi-Mahanyele, Minister for Housing of the Republic of South Africa(Chair);

(b) Mr. Sören Häggroth, State Secretary for Housing and Deputy Minister for Finance of Sweden(Co-chair);

(c) Ms. Jan Peterson, President, Huairou Commission;

(d) Mr. Alan Lloyd, President of the World Associations of Cities and Local AuthoritiesCoordination (WACLAC);

(e) Mr. Sergey P. Melnichenko, representative of the City of Moscow;

(f) Mr. David Painter, United States Agency for International Development (USAID);

(g) Mr. Markku Villikka, International Federation of Surveyors (FIG);

(h) Mr. Arputham Jockin, President, Slum Dweller Federation of India;

(i) Mr. René Frank, International Real Estate Federation (FIABCI), representative of the privatesector.

D. Adoption of the agenda of the World Urban Forum

12. At its first plenary meeting, the Forum adopted the following provisional agenda for its firstsession.

1. Establishment of an advisory group.2. Adoption of the agenda and objectives of the World Urban Forum.3. Working arrangements for the World Urban Forum.4. Sustainable urbanization.5. The role of local authorities and other Habitat Agenda partners.6. Cities without slums.7. The Global Campaign for Secure Tenure and the Global Campaign on Urban Governance.8. Monitoring and assessment.9. Provisional agenda and other arrangements for the second session of the10. World Urban Forum.11. Adoption of the report of the session.

E. Objectives of and working arrangements for the World Urban Forum

13. Also at its first plenary meeting, the Forum established a subgroup to review the objectives of andworking arrangements for the World Urban Forum. The subgroup was open-ended and its meetings wereattended by members of the Advisory Group and interested delegations. It was chaired by Mr. MarkkuVillikka, a member of the Advisory Group. The report of the subgroup is provided in annex IV below.

4

F. Thematic dialogues

14. Thematic dialogues were held on items 5 through 8 of the agenda. The summaries by the chairsof these dialogues are provided in annex I.

1. Role of local authorities and other Habitat Agenda partners (item 5)

15. Under agenda item 5 (the role of local authorities and other Habitat Agenda Partners), thefollowing three dialogues were organised: Decentralization; city to city cooperation; and the internationalrole of non-governmental organizations. The dialogue on city to city cooperation, however, was referredto Dialogues II.

16. The Habitat Agenda and the Declaration on Cities and Other Human Settlements in the NewMillennium1 both recognize that the foundation for successful management of cities and towns is thedevolution of resources and responsibilities to local government. Many developing countries have alreadyadopted decentralization policies to stimulate grass-roots democracy and participation. This in turn haspromoted sustained economic growth and social development.

17. At the present session, UN-HABITAT held dialogues with all Habitat Agenda partners oneffective decentralization. At the same time, UN-HABITAT is in the process of establishing an advisorypanel of constitutional lawyers on decentralization that will provide authoritative advice and guidance tothe high-level inter-governmental dialogue to be held later in 2002.

18.Early exchanges among cities in developed countries were followed by links with cities indeveloping countries. The trend towards democratization and decentralization means that the scopefor cooperation among local authorities on issues of mutual interest has expanded considerably.The international role of NGO’s in the implementation of the Habitat Agenda should also expand.

2. Cities without slums (item 6)

19. Under agenda item 6 (Cities without slums), one dialogue was held.

20. Every day, the total urban population of developing countries increases by more than 170,000people, requiring an additional 30,000 housing units. Such demand has put a severe strain on shelterdelivery systems all over the world and in many towns and cities, up to 70 per cent of the population livesin slums and squatter settlements.

21. Conventional housing policies and financial institutions typically provide facilities to middle andhigh-income earners. Although public housing finance institutions offer longer-term loans to lower incomegroups, they often only do so to those with clear title deeds and certifiable incomes. Therefore, bydefinition, the vast majority of the urban poor are excluded from formal housing finance instruments.Nevertheless, the poor save and lend to each other. Where there is no housing, they build their own shelterand the poor are currently the single largest producers of shelter in the world.

22. The Cities Without Slums initiative aims to support and channel these efforts of the poor, byinvesting in them and their organizations, and in cities where multiple stakeholders demonstrate a sharedcommitment to addressing poverty and inequality through well-integrated programmes. This dialogue,organised under the umbrella of the Cities Alliance, discussed how the Cities without Slums initiativecould increase its impact.

3. Global Campaign for Secure Tenure and Global Campaign on Urban Governance (item 7)

23. Under agenda item 7, two dialogues were held on the Global Campaign for Secure Tenure andthe Global Campaign on Urban Governance, respectively.

1 General Assembly resolution S-25/2, annex.

5

24. Over the years, the assumption that central governments could be the sole providers of welfareand housing for the poor has been abandoned. There is now an emphasis on enabling partnership andequitable participation that includes male and female citizens in the day-to-day management of cities andtowns. In support of these developments, UN-HABITAT launched, in 1999, two complementaryinitiatives: the Global Campaign on Urban Governance and the Global Campaign for Secure Tenure.

25. The Global Campaign on Urban Governance seeks to promote benchmark guidelines fordemocratic and equitable urban development based on decentralization, sustainability, equity of accessto decision-making processes, transparency, accountability, civic engagement and citizenship.International legal instruments, government commitments made at United Nations conferences and historiccase studies provide the inspiration for this new advocacy approach.

26. Lack of security of tenure is both a cause and an effect of poverty. The Global Campaign forSecure Tenure advocates negotiation as an alternative to forced eviction of the poor who lack legal titleor lease contract. The provision of security of tenure is the strategic entry point to investment in shantytowns, squatter settlements and slums by the poor and their supporters.

4. Monitoring urban conditions (item 8)

27. Under agenda item 8, one dialogue on monitoring and assessment was held.

28. A collective awareness of urban conditions through transparent and open processes of monitoringand evaluation is conducive to participatory urban governance and sustainable urbanization. To stimulatesuch processes, UN-HABITAT has established the Global Urban Observatory to assist Governments andtheir partners. The Observatory has developed criteria for global meta-indicators to gauge the progress,or lack thereof, in the upgrading of slums. Indicators cover type of land tenure, structural quality ofhousing units, and access to basic infrastructure and services. The Observatory has further created a CityDevelopment Index and will monitor improvements in the living conditions of 100 million slum dwellers,in relation to the corresponding United Nations Millennium Declaration2 goal as its guide.

G. Dialogues on sustainable urbanization (item 4)

2 General Assembly resolution 55/2 of 8 September 2000.

6

29. Under agenda item 4 (sustainable urbanization), five dialogues were held: role of cities insustainable development; rural dimension of sustainable urban development; management of theHIV/AIDS pandemic at the local level; and water and sanitation. Additionally, the thematic dialogue oncity-to-city cooperation was considered under this item.

30. The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development stated in its agenda foraction that safeguarding the environment is integral to sustainable social and economic development. Insubsequent global United Nations conferences, such as the 1996 United Nations Conference on HumanSettlements (Habitat II) and the 2001 twenty-fifth special session of the General Assembly on theimplementation of the Habitat Agenda, the link between a dynamic environment and productive cities hasbeen consistently reaffirmed. One of the objectives of the dialogues under this agenda item was to prepareinputs on the relationships between urbanization and the global environment into the World Summit onSustainable Development.3

31. The Forum’s dialogues on sustainable urbanization looked at new concepts and approaches to thedesign and management of socially and environmentally sustainable cities and towns. They addressedcritical issues such as urban poverty, HIV/AIDS and the interdependence of rural and urban communitiesin the age of globalization.

32. Globalization has also led to the urbanization of poverty, social segregation and divided cities.Up to one third of urban households worldwide live in absolute poverty. Slums contain the classicingredients for the HIV/AIDS epidemic: overcrowded populations, violence against women and girls, poorhygiene and inadequate shelter and health systems. Unless the spread of HIV/AIDS is halted, it willentirely change the social and demographic profiles of urban areas. All these recent developments requirethe formulation and implementation of appropriate policies and actions for sustainable urbanization.

III. PROVISIONAL AGENDA AND OTHER ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE SECOND SESSIONOF THE WORLD URBAN FORUM

33. According to paragraph 11 of the report of the subgroup on the objectives and workingarrangements of the World Urban Forum, the provisional agenda for each session of the World UrbanForum will be prepared by the Secretariat in consultation with national Governments, local authorities andother Habitat Agenda partners, at least six months in advance of the session. In accordance with theprovisions of this paragraph, the Secretariat will consult, prepare and circulate the provisional agenda forthe second session at least six months in advance of the session.

34. The second session of the World Urban Forum will be held in Barcelona from 13 to 17 September2004. It will be hosted by the Municipality of Barcelona.

IV. ENDORSEMENT OF THE REPORT OF THE SESSION

35. The World Urban Forum endorsed in its entirety the present report on its work at the first sessionfor submission by the Chair to the Executive Director of UN-HABITAT.

V. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION

36. At the closure of the first session of the World Urban Forum, statements were made by thefollowing speakers:

(a) The Co-chair of the World Urban Forum, Hon. Mr. Sören Häggroth, State Secretary forHousing and Deputy Minister for Finance of Sweden;

(b) The Chair of the World Urban Forum, Hon. Ms. Sankie D. Mthembi-Mahanyele, the Ministerfor Housing of the Republic of South Africa; and

3 General Assembly resolution 55/199 of December 2000.

7

(c) The Executive Director of UN-HABITAT, Mrs. Anna K. Tibaijuka.

37. Summaries of their statements are provided in annex VI.

38. Brief statements were then made by participants on behalf of their respective groups, praising theconduct and outcome of the first session of the World Urban Forum:

(a) Mr. Subir Bhattacharrya, the Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to UN-HABITAT, andChairman of the Committee of Permanent Representatives to UN-HABITAT;

(b) The Deputy Mayor of Nairobi, Mr. Joe Aketch, who spoke on behalf of local authorities;

(c) Ms. Jane Weru of Pamoja Trust, who spoke on behalf of NGOs;

(d) Ms. Rose Molokoane, who spoke on behalf of slum dwellers associations;

(e) Mr. Tony Lloyd Jones, of the Department for International Development of the UnitedKingdom, who spoke on behalf of external support agencies;

(f) Mr. William Morogo, Minister for Roads and Public Works, who spoke on behalf of the hostcountry, Kenya.

39. The Chair declared the first session of the World Urban Forum closed on 3 May 2002 at 4.30 p.m.

Annex I

REPORTS ON THEMATIC DIALOGUES

As indicated in paragraph 7 of the report of the Subgroup on the Objectives of and WorkingArrangements for the World Urban Forum, (see annex IV of the present report), the summaries of theChairs which appear in annex I and annex II intend to summarize the main issues and objectives raisedduring the presentation and discussions. These summaries have been endorsed by the plenary as anaccurate reflection of what transpired in the dialogues. The plenary has clarified that the recommendationsmade in these summaries are not expected to reflect a consensus but the views of a number of speakersand partners which are not necessarily shared by all participants.

.

8

1. THE GLOBAL CAMPAIGN ON URBAN GOVERNANCE“THE RIGHT TO THE CITY”

Monday, 29 April, p.m.

Panelists

1. Mrs. Sankie D. Mthembi-Mahanyele, Minister for Housing, South Africa (Chair)2. Mr. Paul Taylor, Chief, Urban Development Branch, UN-HABITAT (Facilitator)3. Ms. Raquel Rolnik, Brazilian National Urban Reform Forum, Brazil (Keynote Address)4. Mr. Keith Boyfield, Boyfield Associates, United Kingdom5. Mr. Patrick Hunsley, South African Homeless Peoples Federation, South Africa6. Mayor Ms. Mary Jane Ortega, San Fernando, The Philippines 7. Ms. Prema Gopalan, Swayam Shikshan Prayog (SSP), India, and Huairou Commission 8. Mr. John Flora, Director, Transport and Urban Development Department, World Bank 9. Mr. Michael Lippe, Urban Coordinator, Transparency International 10. Mr. Carl Wright, Director, Commonwealth Local Government Forum

Documentation

HSP/WUF/1/DLG.I/Paper 7, Global Campaign on Urban Governance: Progress report of the ExecutiveDirector

The Brazilian City Statute: Collective Construction of Innovative Legislation, by Raquel Rolnik, BrazilianNational Urban Reform Forum

1. ISSUES

A moment of silence was observed to remember Mr. Celso Daniel, formerly the Mayor of SantoAndre, Brazil, and a tireless champion of social inclusion. The Dialogue was dedicated to his memory.

One of the most unpleasant faces of globalisation has been the expanding gulf between the richand the poor. A central message of the 2001 Global Report on Human Settlements is that inequalityweakens the impact of growth on fighting poverty. Research has shown that decreasing inequality canhave as much impact on reducing poverty as increasing economic growth. At the city level, this meansthat more equal cities will have a greater impact on poverty reduction than more unequal cities.

But how to make our cities more inclusive? One approach is to establish a legal “Right to theCity”, as proposed during the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre this year. The meeting called for a“world document” that would serve as an advocacy tool to promote more inclusive cities. The newlyadopted Brazilian “City Statute” has been held up as an example of legislation that promotes the “socialfunction of the city” through a combination of land management instruments that deter speculation, tenureregularization procedures, and requirements for public participation in urban planning. Essentially, theStatute presents cities as the new “commons” – space to which every citizen, even the poorest, has a legalright. The concept of the “right to the city” raises several important issues, which were debated duringthe World Urban Forum.

2. DEBATE

Many participants criticized the current “neo-liberal paradigm” as increasing social exclusion in cities. One speaker noted that exclusionary cities were created by market mechanisms coupled withglobalisation. Speakers cited growing income gaps between the rich and the poor, gated communities andthe creation of a new class of urban “non-citizens”. One commented, “do many of you know where youremployees live? Maybe on your roof?” Another observed, commenting on the recent Argentineexperience, that the, “good governance of cities is incompatible with a neo-liberal economic order thatproposes structural adjustment policies as the method and the concentration of wealth as the goal.” Some

9

questioned whether cities were powerful enough to master the forces of globalization for their ownbenefit, while others proposed that cities rally together to change national macroeconomic policies.

The appropriate role of Government and the markets in promoting equitable growth was debated. One speaker observed that the numerous small businesses in Nairobi demonstrate that, in the face ofgrowing inequality, “markets are working.” Another pointed to a “breakdown of markets in slums,” whilesomeone else stated that “markets could not be relied upon to provide basic services to the poor;governments do have an important role to play.” A speaker added that there was a need to “reconcileDavos and Porto Alegre” and promote cities that are both productive and inclusive. Another stressed that“a city is either inclusive or it is not a city”. On the issue of the promotion of rights to good urbangovernance through the establishment of fundamental principles embodied in international norms, onespeaker questioned whether this was possible when there is inequality in the international economicsystem.

The politics and regulation of urban land was hotly contested. A point of view was advanced thatconventional planning entrenched the inequalities of the market and that the logic of planning had to bereversed to make it accessible to all citizens. Speakers noted that zoning could often be used to preservethe best land for the wealthy, while forcing the poor onto marginal land. Local politicians, another noted,can develop clientelistic relations with the urban poor, providing small investments in exchange forpolitical support. The fundamental power structures, however, remain unchanged. Planning regulationsand instruments, such as those contained in the “City Statute,” some argued could be useful in makingcities more equitable. Excessive regulation, another warned, “merely provides opportunities for rampantcorruption.” The speaker suggested the denationalisation of land-use planning and the creation of atransparent market in property development as other options to regulation. “Zoning controls,” they added,“merely raise prices and force people to commute huge distances.” Property rights, another countered,should never be placed above human rights.

The issue of corruption featured prominently in the debate. One speaker highlighted the negativeeffects of corruption: an extra tax on the urban poor; loss of trust in institutions such as the police; anda disincentive for investment in cities. They added, “people are often betrayed by leaders who, in theory,should be looking after their interests.” They remarked that there was a general impression that localgovernment is more corrupt than national government. Another participant disagreed, stating that the“fundamental problem is that much of government is top-down and not directed by the grassroots.” Thestrengthening of local democracy was advocated, noting that the right to information was fundamentaland should be enshrined in legislation. Many called for increased transparency and accountability in localand national governments.

Many speakers called for a new approach to poverty reduction, one that promotes more effectivegrassroots governance and builds on the initiatives of the urban poor themselves. Said one participant,“We are not looking for partnerships which are project driven, but partnerships which acknowledge theknowledge and resources that the poor bring to the table.” Examples of grassroots savings groups andhousing programmes initiated by the poor themselves were cited as evidence of the resources of the poor. One speaker noted the difficulty of donors to directly fund both local authorities and grassrootsorganisations. Others argued that donors should support not just projects, but processes too, particularlythose that help the poor mobilise and learn from each other.

Many participants championed the participation of the urban poor in poverty reduction programmes. One speaker, however, noted that the poor “are forced by circumstances to participate,” not by choice. The debate focused on the issue of the quality of participation. One speaker stated, “there needs to bea reform of policies which allow for not only consultation, but also for deciding priorities and assigningdevelopment resources.” Another cautioned, however, that even in the case of participatory budgetingin Brazil citizens had political control over only 10-12 percent of the city budget. Other speakers: warnedof the potential for non-governmental organisations to act as gate-keepers of the urban poor; observed thatinterest group politics can undermine notions of the common good; and noted the decline of participationin the North. An important relationship was identified by many between participation and citizenship.“Do the poor have a right to the city,” asked one participant, “yes they do if they stand up and be countedand show they can be responsible.” There was a call for a new “culture of citizenship,” a new civism. As

10

one speaker pointed out, “we need to teach people how to live in cities.” Another speaker mentioned therole of faith-based groups in the process.

3. LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS

• The market alone cannot be relied upon to deliver basic services for the poor; there is an importantrole for national governments and for creating new partnerships between local authorities and theprivate sector;

• Tenure without providing the poor and marginalised with access to prime urban land and basicservices can perpetuate exclusion; good urban governance does not mean there is no conflict ofinterests at the local level

• Rights-based approaches and regulation can be useful for promoting social inclusion, but excessiveregulation can create disincentives for business and a climate for corruption;

• Participation is essential for ensuring more equitable development, however, capacity building andaccess to information are also vital for effective local democracy.

11

2. CITIES WITHOUT SLUMS

Tuesday, 30 April 2002, a.m.Panelists

1. Mr. J.P. Elong Mbassi, Coordinator, Municipal Development Partnerships, and Cities Alliance Policy Advisory Board (Chair),2. Mr. Geoffrey Payne, Principal, Geoffrey Payne and Associates (Facilitator)First part: Lessons Learned and Innovations on Slum Upgrading3. Mr. Alan Carroll, Lead Urban Specialist, World Bank, Africa Region4. Mr. Landing Sane, Restructuration et regularisation fonciere des quartiers d’habitat spontané, Fondation Droit á la Ville Dakar, Senegal.Second part: Setting Local Targets for the Millennium Declaration Goal ‘Cities Without Slums’5. Ms. Somsook Boonyabancha, Director, Community Organizations Development Institute

(Thailand); Secretary General, Asian Coalition for Housing Rights Partnerships & Chair, CitiesAlliance Policy Advisory Board;

6. Mr. Paulo Texeira, Secretariat of Housing and Urban Development, City of São Paulo;7. Ms. Edith Mbanga, community development activist, Namibia;8. Mr. Kosmos Egumbo, Strategic Executive, Planning, Urbanisation and Environment, Windhoek,

Namibia.

Documentation

HSP/WUF/1/DLG.I/Paper 4, Cities without slums

HSP/WUF/1/DLG.I/Paper 5, Urban development and shelter favouring the poor (draft theme paper forthe Governing Council at its nineteenth session)

1. ISSUES

The most significant result of rapid urbanization, particularly in developing countries, has beengrowth of urban slums and informal settlements. These settlements are fast becoming the most visibleexpression of poverty worldwide, the expressions of an increasing urbanization of poverty. It is againstthis background that the leaders of the world recently set themselves a new goal in the MillenniumDeclaration. Heads of State and Government resolved “By 2020, to have achieved a significantimprovement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers as proposed in the ‘Cities Without Slums’initiative.”

The objectives of the Dialogue are to a) review lessons learnt and innovations on slum upgrading, andb) to set local targets for the realization of the Millennium Declaration Goal on “Cities without Slums”.The dialogue was thus organized with two consecutive sessions; each introduced by two or morepresentations.

2. DEBATE

The Millennium Development goal of achieving a significant improvement in the lives of at least100 million slum dwellers by 2020 may seem overtly optimistic. Yet, if the goal is viewed in light of thetotal number of slum dwellers today and the projected growth in the number of slums during the next twodecades, the perspective changes. In fact, the target may then be very modest.

It has become increasingly evident that the goal of cities without slums must be addressed in atwo- pronged approach. On the one side, it is essential that the concerns of current slum dwellers areaddressed; on the other hand the growth of new slums must be reduced, by providing affordable andappropriate new land developments. In fact, provision of housing should not be perceived as the mainproblem. The main problem is the lack of appropriate and sustainable urban land development.

12

With respect to the second approach, it is essential that new land developments must be locatedin areas that are within reach of employment opportunities and basic services. Moreover, such newdevelopments must be established within an enabling framework. Minimum standards should beestablished with respect to infrastructure and services at the city level, through consultations with allpartners.

The goal of cities without slums must clearly not lead to forced evictions or to problem solvingby bulldozers. With the exception of settlements that have been constructed in environmentally hazardousor strategic locations, all slums should be upgraded in situ. Cities without slums imply that slum areas aretransformed and integrated into the city, through poverty reduction strategies, improved infrastructure,services and housing.

In this connection, it is essential to undertake in-depth surveys in all slums. Yet, even insettlements that are deemed inappropriate for habitation, people should be given temporary residencypermits while alternative locations are identified in consultation with the residents themselves. Theresidents of such communities should be given preferential treatment with regard to the allocation of landin new land developments.

A simple way to initiate activities towards achieving the goal of cities without slums might startwith an expression of strong political will, formally stating that no further forced and unnegotiatedevictions will take place. This is a measure that can be taken everywhere and immediately, without anylegislative or regulatory changes. For people living in poverty, de facto security of tenure is just asimportant as de jure security.

Equally important, it is essential to bear in mind that the people living in poverty are not ahomogenous group. To successfully address the concerns of people living in poverty it is essential to knowwho they are, why they are poor and what their priorities are. Particular attention should be paid to genderissues, and the needs of older people, people with disabilities and other vulnerable and disadvantagedgroups. Furthermore, it is essential that the people themselves are involved in identifying priorities.Several experiences have shown however that secure tenure – should be understood within a broad contextas people living in poverty may instead require temporary residence permits, which give them securityin the short an intermediate term, and allow them to sustain a daily income that ensures their survival.

Although community participation is essential for successful slum upgrading, this is not enough.Genuine and appropriate partnerships between stakeholders are required. Acceptance as an equal partnercan facilitate a feeling of ownership among the slum dwellers themselves, particularly when they are anorganized and empowered community.

Furthermore, the involvement of communities has to be perceived at several levels. Empoweringof communities is a goal in itself. In addition, networking and linkages between the various partnersincluding communities is essential in upgrading initiatives. The role of local authorities in urbandevelopment, particularly in slum upgrading, is fundamental.

Synergies are one major expected outcome of partnerships, including those involving externaldonors or technical cooperation agencies. Synergies between these external parties are very important.Such agencies should take care in ensuring that their terms of references are in line with that of othersimilar agencies, and thus prevent conflicting conditions in their approaches.

Partnerships between communities and their organizations, Egos, local authorities, nationalgovernments, service providers and private sector players are essential components of addressing the goalof cities without slums. Yet, having these arrangements in place is not enough. Technical means andsolutions only can not achieve a reduction in the number of slums and slum dwellers.

Structural changes, such as improved or new legislative and regulatory frameworks are also oftenessential. Moreover, new institutions may be required. Some of the institutions that have managed thefailures of the past should be replaced by new institutions that can more effectively address the concerns

13

of today.

To achieve the goal of cities without slums, a programmatic approach – with citywide orcountrywide focus – is essential. Such programmes must have a long-term perspective and should includeboth slum upgrading and new land developments. Moreover, national or citywide development andpoverty eradication strategies have to be integral components of these initiatives.

All slum upgrading and new land development initiatives have to pay particular attention to theissue of affordability and cost recovery. It is important to note that people living in poverty should not beforced to pay more for infrastructure and services than middle and higher income groups, as is often thecase. Moreover, particular attention has to be paid to the concerns of tenants, which frequently constitutethe majority of residents in slums and informal settlements.


• Stop all unlawful and forced evictions immediately.

• Promote security of tenure in its different forms.

• When relocation becomes inevitable, due to environmental or other hazards, new locations mustbe planned in partnership with the communities concerned.

• Address the interests of tenants as well as landlords in slum upgrading initiatives.

• Identify who the poor are, and their priorities.

• Ensure gender focus in all aspects of slum upgrading and new land developments.

• Slum upgrading alone is not sufficient, appropriate new land developments are also required.

• Promote partnerships between all stakeholders, and empower communities to become equalpartners.

• The role of local authorities in slum upgrading is fundamental.

• Promote institutional and legal reforms.

• Physical planning is required for urban and rural areas according to social, economic andenvironmental studies with the participation of national government, local authorities and civiccommunities.

• Physical planning is required to avoid new slums, and such plans should be prepared in cooperationby national governments, local authorities and civil society to address the needs of urban and ruralsettlements.

14

3. DECENTRALIZATION

Tuesday, 30 April 2002, p.m.

Panelists

1. Senator Mr. Ernesto Gil Elorduy, President of the Global Parliamentarians on Habitat, (Chair) 2. Prof. R. Stren, University of Toronto, Canada 3. Prof. I. Shivji, University of Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania 4. Prof. O. P. Mathur, National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, New Delhi, India 5. Prof. C. Souza, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil

6. Dr. H. Hoffschulte, Senior Vice-president, Council of European Municipalities and Regions, Germany7. Dr. J .P. Ngugi, Programme Coordinator, Kenya Local Government Reform Programme 8. Ms. N. Dube, Speaker of the Ethekwini Council (formerly Durban), Social Economic Department Committee, SALGA, South Africa

Documentation

HSP/WUF/1/DLG.I/Paper 1, Dialogue on effective decentralization, including principles and legalframeworks in support of the implementation of the Habitat Agenda,

The Newest Decentralization: Can We Sustain It? By Richard E. Stren, University of Toronto,

Habitat Debate, special issue on decentralization

1. ISSUES

Despite many efforts and different decentralization policies, many developing countries are stilllooking for acceptable options regarding new social and economical responsibilities for municipalitiesin areas such as education and health vis a vis the continuing role of national government ministries inthese areas. With new and expanded powers at the local level, issues relate to the scope for associationsof mayors or municipalities; the financial autonomy of municipalities and with large numbers of newlyelected councilors, the kind of training facilities or institutions needed to ensure their effectiveparticipation in local government bodies. Important issues relate to whether municipalities need morefunding given an extensive list of powers under new constitutional amendments and the implications ofmaking municipalities responsible for urban poverty alleviation. Further, important issues relate to thesort and rate of tax collection and local revenues and whether municipalities should have the right to issuebonds for the purpose of financing infrastructure; the relative roles of business and local governmentbodies in the development of infrastructure and services; planning mechanisms required to ensure an evenlocal provision of essential social services and infrastructure; the support required for municipalities toeffectively perform a development function and the role of national and provincial governments inguiding development at the municipal level; the selection of communities and community organizationsfor engagement in local development including organizational or institutional frameworks; the connectionof a participatory budgeting process with the regular process of decision-making and budgeting under thecontrol of elected local councilors, and the relationship between decisions on capital budget expendituresmade by different districts of the city and city-wide expenditures .

2. DEBATE

Drawing from their own regional experience with decentralization, panelists generally agreed thatdecentralization policies had great potential for strengthening local authorities, anchoring democracy indeveloping and transition countries, as well as implementing the Habitat Agenda. One speaker discussedhow the notion of subsidiarity could be employed to offer philosophical support to this process. However,some participants raised doubts as to the sustainability of the new trends of decentralization if there is nostrong and enabling role from central governments. Some participants stressed that decentralization can

15

only be effective where there is a strong central government.

Participants also raised the importance of local autonomy as an essential building block ofnational and sub-national democracy and the use of existing international human rights instruments tomonitor the performance of decentralization policies was also raised.

There was general support for some international initiative and based on the recognition thatdecentralization was essential to overall international and national objectives of democratic governance,economic growth and sustainable development. However, it was observed that decentralization oftenstopped at the city level, while in many African countries, which are still predominantly rural, the villagelevel is the most important for development. An integrated approach to decentralization is thereforerequired. It was also noted that in some African countries, cities contribute as much as 80 percent of theGDP and must have sufficient autonomy to compete in the globalized economy.

It was mentioned that that there was an important role for local governments in mitigating the negativeconsequences of globalization, particularly as many Governments are gradually withdrawing from serviceprovision. Several speakers also stressed that the local authorities were increasingly relying on public-private partnerships to deliver services and there is a need to ensure the poor are not priced out of themarket. Other speakers called for increased capacity-building support to the local level to enable localauthorities to fulfill their new responsibilities.


• Despite all political, cultural, legal, and institutional differences in the context of decentralization,countries around the world could benefit from various frameworks, including constructive guidelinesto guide the process towards an effective decentralization.

• The key role of national, sub-national, legal, cultural, political and social settings.• Decentralization need not be regarded as an ideology, but as a tool for development. There needs to

be a menu of options for different states drawing on the rich experience of many countries.• Successful decentralization and development processes are complementary. • There is a link between the decentralization process and important issues of gender in modern

societies. • Hope was expressed that this discussion on decentralization issues could contribute to the formal

intergovernmental dialogue on decentralization mandated by the Commission on Human Settlementsand due to begin later this year.

16

4. CITY-TO-CITY COOPERATION

Wednesday, 1 May 2002, a.m.

Panelists1. Councilor Alan Lloyd, Chairman of WACLAC, President of IULA, Swansea City Council, UK (Chair)2. Mr. Paul Bongers, Consultant to UN-Habitat (Facilitator)Introduction: C2C for Sustainable Urbanisation – Partnerships for WSSD3. Perspective of city authority: Ms Mary Jane Ortega, Mayor of San Fernando, Philippines4. Perspective of support organisation: Mr Marcelo Nowersztern, United Towns Organisation5. Perspective of cities association: Mr Carl Wright, Director, Commonwealth Local Government ForumPartnership 1: New Model C2C AgreementsPartnership 2: From Best Practice to Policies6. Introduction: Mr Nick You, UN-Habitat7. Perspective of cities association: Ms Judit Carrera, METROPOLIS8. Perspective of funding agency: Mr Aser Cortines, Director, CAIXA, BrazilPartnership 3: Training Programme for Local Authorities on C2C for Sustainable Development9. Introductions: Mr Christophe Nuttall, UNITAR and Mr Tomasz Sudra, UN-Habitat10. Perspective of private sector/donor: Mr Dominique Heron, Vivendi Environment11. Perspective of support organisation: Mr Marcelo Nowersztern, United Towns OrganisationPartnership 4: Partnership for Local Capacity Development12. Perspective of cities association: Ms Emilia Saiz, International Union of Local Authorities13. Perspective of donor: Mr Jonas Westerlund, Deputy Permanent Representative, SwedenConclusion: Taking the Partnerships Forward to WSSD14. Perspective of city authority: Councillor Parks Tau, Johannesburg City Council, South Africa

Documentation

HSP/WUF/1/DLG.I/Paper 2, City-to-city cooperation, transfers and international exchanges based ondocumented best practices, good policies and action plans

HSP/WUF/1/DLG.I/Paper 2/Add.1, Guidelines for documenting urban policies and enabling legislation

Second Interim Report: ‘City-to-City Cooperation: Issues Arising from Experience’, UN-Habitat andWACLAC, April 2002

1. ISSUES

This session of Dialogue I addressed the theme of ‘City-to-City Cooperation’ (‘C2C’), allyingitself with the Dialogue II process of debating potential partnerships to be taken forward to the WorldSummit on Sustainable Development. The session was based principally upon the findings of a secondInterim Report on the current state of the art of C2C jointly prepared by UN-Habitat and WACLAC. Forthe purposes of this dialogue the term ‘city’ was understood to cover local communities of all types andsizes ranging from megacities to small towns and villages. The term city-to-city cooperation refers to awide range of processes whereby local government practitioners work together, often with support fromexternal agencies, to exchange experience and expertise and seek solutions to shared problems.

It is apparent that traditional town twinning has moved on a long way (without abandoning itsstrong cultural roots). International cooperation between local authorities has expanded greatly in recentyears, often with positive results but sometimes inefficiently and unsustainably. C2C takes place moreoften now through thematic networks rather than one-on-one links. A wide range of shared problems arebeing addressed by cities working in partnership, sharing best practice experience and expertise andlearning new skills in policy development and implementation. A growing number of bi-and multi-lateralagencies support this cooperation – North-North, North-South, West-East, and, increasingly, South-South.

The structured analysis of the policies and practices of cities and support agencies in C2C on the

17

basis of their defining characteristics points to certain significant trends in C2C practice and policy issuesarising. The need is seen for local authorities, support programmes and funding agencies to combine theirefforts to reduce duplication, fill gaps, and ensure maximum efficiency. It is suggested that, alongsideeffective decentralisation, C2C has a significant role to play in building the urban governance capacityneeded to make the urbanisation process sustainable.

Particular issues calling for attention are:

• the need to facilitate further the spread of best practice exchange among city practitioners and toenhance its impact upon future urban policies;

• the need to promote awareness of best practice in C2C itself;• the need to expand training of practitioners engaged in C2C to make best use of the opportunities it

provides;• the need to ensure that support provided to C2C initiatives is demand-led rather than supply-driven;• the need to improve the availability of information on C2C practice and to facilitate a policy dialogue

among local authorities, support agencies and donors aimed at reducing duplication, filling gaps, andachieving maximum collective efficiency.

The four prospective partnerships put forward to the session sought to address these issues, viz:-

Partnership 1: A series of new model C2C partnership agreements illustrating the range of possible formssuch decentralised cooperation may take;

Partnership 2: A partnership commitment to develop the best practices exchange system in the directionof feeding the lessons from best practices into the development of good policies and enabling legislation;

Partnership 3: A partnership to develop a public-private sector training programme for C2C capacity-building based upon the needs being identified in a series of regional seminars organised by UNITAR andUN-Habitat in conjunction with WACLAC and Vivendi Environnement.

Partnership 4: A ‘Partnership for Local Capacity Development’ to facilitate joint policy formation betweenlocal authorities, support agencies and donors on the basis of a systematic information service.

2. DEBATE

The issues behind the prospective partnerships were debated individually in the light of the panelists’presentations and the findings of the new Report on C2C. While the participants recognised the relevanceand inter-connectedness of the whole range of C2C practice, ranging from traditional town twinnings viathe activities of national and international associations and networks to externally supported capacity-building projects, they focused in particular upon the contribution of C2C to local capacity developmentin the South and the countries in transition. Examples of successes and failures in C2C practice wereoutlined, against the background of a broad consensus regarding the value and potential of C2C initiativeswhich are soundly based, carefully targeted and engage the participation of the relevant stakeholders.

The following points were highlighted:-- the need for local authorities to have sufficient capacity and autonomy to be able to make effective

use of C2C;- the tendency of UN and other external agencies to view C2C as technical transfer mechanisms

meeting their own policy objectives rather than organic partnerships between cities wishing to developpolicies together;

- the difficulties created by inappropriate linkages fostered by external agencies;- the need for C2C to be rooted firmly in the local community - including business interests, NGOs and

CBOs, and other stakeholders - to ensure its sustainability;- the relatively low cost of peer-to-peer exchanges involving in-kind inputs by the cities themselves,

as compared with consultancy approaches;- the need for C2C initiatives to have clearly defined objectives, practical outputs and realistic

18

timeframes;- the advantages to be gained from South-South cooperation on account of the greater similarity of

conditions between the partners;- the powerful contribution of C2C to confidence-building and conflict resolution in post-conflict

situations, as demonstrated by the work of the Council of Europe’s ‘local democracy agencies’ inCentral and Eastern Europe;

- the contribution which can be made by C2C links at local community level as demonstrated by theinitiatives of the South African Homeless Federation;

- the need to find effective ways of scaling up successful individual C2C initiatives within countriesand assuring their longer-term sustainability;

- the need to move beyond approaches based upon formal cultural ties and/or charity (eg. provision ofredundant equipment) to those which really engage the communities concerned and notably youngpeople;

- the need to give serious attention to ways of overcoming cultural and linguistic barriers and ensuringfull mutual confidence;

- the need to improve mechanisms for monitoring the contribution made by C2C to meetingorganisational development goals;

- the continuing need to improve the accessibility of support programmes for local authorities in moreremote areas, and to step up funding support for them;

- the desirability of sharpening the targeting of C2C support and developing a sensitive normativeframework to guide future initiatives;

- the need to overcome the shortfall in training in urban capacity development, including the practiceof C2C;

- the interest of certain private sector partners in supporting well targeted initiatives and strengtheningthe social awareness of private sector utility providers;

- the potential contribution of C2C in the area of institutional strengthening and change management;- the need for C2C exchanges relating to urban services to take place at all appropriate political,

managerial, professional and technical levels ;- the importance of building any new coordination arrangements between local authorities, support

programmes and donors upon the substantial and growing support and facilitation services providedby the existing international, regional and national local government associations, and to focus uponpractical outcomes for cities;

- the need to develop longer-term policy partnerships between local government organisations andinternational support programmes;

- the need for ownership by local government and its associations of the proposed new Partnership forLocal Capacity Development, including participation in its funding and management and clear linkagewith existing support facilities.


• C2C brings substantial benefits for urban capacity development and has much potential to contributeto sustainable urbanisation;

• There need to be clear legislative powers in all countries for local authorities to cooperateinternationally;

• The four prospective partnerships presented at the session should be further developed between therelevant parties;

• It must always be kept in mind that cities and towns do not merely consist of local governmentstructures and collections of buildings but are communities of human beings who must participatefully in defining their living conditions and way of life.

5. INTERNATIONAL ROLE OF NON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

Wednesday, 1 May 2002, p.m.

19

Introductory statements

1. Mr. Cesare Ottolini, Habitat International Coalition-HIC2. Ms. Ruth Mc Leod, Homeless International3. Ms. Anna Vasilache, Partners of Romania Foundation for Local Development4. Mr. Eric Makokha, Coordinator Africaucus5. Ms. Jan Peterson, Groots International6. Mr. Wahome Muchiri, Host of "Upclose & Candid", Nation TV, Kenya, (Facilitator)

Documentation

HSP/WUF/1/DLG.I/Paper 3, International role of non-governmental organisations in theimplementation of the Habitat Agenda

1.ISSUES

A moment of silence was observed to remember Jacques Bugnicourt, founder and ExecutiveSecretary of ENDA-Tiers Monde, who had passed away.

The purpose of the Dialogue was to discuss the International Role of NGO's; link up the cornersof the triangle among international NGO's, local grassroots organizations and the individual citizens. Theexpected outputs of the dialogue were 1) matrix of the division of labour for further implementation 2)strategy for the Urban sector NGO in Johannesburg 3) action plan/decetralization towards increased NGOcontribution in the Slum upgrading rehabilitation and poverty reduction programmes and 4) initiative toestablish an NGO Advisory Board to UN-HABITAT. In order to focus the dialogue/debate the followingmajor issues have to be addressed. Firstly, the role of citizens in development and typologies of interactionbetween citizens, local governments and national governments. Secondly, how to support and increasethe contribution of NGOs to the implementation of Habitat Agenda through international cooperation.Thirdly, how to structure the voice of NGO vis-a-vis the UN discussion on Habitat Agenda. Fourthly, howto go forward with the citizens brown agenda. He fifth issue to be addressed is how to involve large(international) NGOs into urban poverty eradication and slum upgrading programmes. Lastly, the issueon how to better articulate UN and NGO interventions into reconstruction programmes.

2. DEBATE

This dialogue was well attended by NGOs and representatives of local and national governmentswith approximate total participants of 170. The debate could be broadly divided into the views andpositions of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) participants and those of local and national governmentparticipants.

From the CSO participants:One specific concern of Community Based Organizations is that they should be recognized as equalpartners and with a place "on the table", representing themselves as opposed to being represented byothers. Further, they would like grassroots knowledge and expertise to be respected at the policy level.

At the macro level, there are certain global crisis and situations that need a response from aHabitat Agenda perspective. These are globalization and the destruction of settlements and livelihoodsby war. These were raised as concerns of CSOs that are perceived to be inadequately addressed by theinternational development community.

20

Various CSO roles and areas of work were identified. They include advocacy (especially on pro-poor policies and practices), knowledge building and shaping global policy. One very important role forNGOs is facilitating the link between local authorities and communities. This role implies constantdialogue and negotiation with both sides. It also includes support to community exchanges. Constraintsto such interventions include lack of adequate resources, and the absence of an enabling politicalenvironment.

As far as relationships with governmental and inter-governmental structures, there is a feeling thatCSOs have been accepted but are still regarded with suspicion: in other words, partnership is stillproblematic in many areas. National governments in particular are seen as being suspicious of NGOs. Theparticipants from the governments indicated that governments are ready to cooperate with the NGOs,granted that NGOs work on noble-causes, and that they are well managed and accountable.

From non-CSO participants:There was general consensus that NGOs are doing very important work, have very high levels ofcommitment, are pro-poor and are well suited to intervening at the local level. However, certainconstraints and reservations were expressed: a perceived unnecessarily confrontational and "moralsuperiority complex" attitude towards governments; very diverse views and ways of operating amongNGOs, including competition and suspicion among themselves; agendas that are not always "noble", toomuch political involvement; lack of monitoring and accountability mechanisms; and inability to scale-up.


Some points of agreement were reached even though there was no consensus per se. It was agreedthat the work of NGOs is important and valuable. Recommendations for the future include:• Recognition that it is difficult, and perhaps not necessary to achieve NGO consensus on all issues. The

challenge is to find mechanisms for managing and benefiting from diversity. This includes findingeffective conflict resolution mechanisms, as well as self monitoring and evaluation;

• NGOs need resources for their work, including resources for participating in international fora and work;

• A very important role for NGOs is to link communities and local government. This needs recognitionin the form of resources and an enabling political environment;

• Intergovernmental agencies (UN-HABITAT) should play a role in building trust of governmentstowards NGOs;

• UN-HABITAT should do a critical analysis of its relationship with NGOs. An NGO Advisory Boardmay be one mechanism for effective partnership but it needs thorough discussion by all stakeholders.The process for this discussion could be initiated in Johannesburg, during WSSD through a multi-stakeholder meeting.

21

6. GLOBAL CAMPAIGN FOR SECURE TENURE

STOPPING FORCED EVICTIONS AND SECURING TENURE

Thursday, 2 May 2002, a.m.

Panelists

1. Ms. Ruth McLeod, Homeless International, UK (Chair)2. Mr. Miloon Kothari, Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing (Facilitator)3. Mr. Ezekiel Rema, Muungano Wa Wanavijiji, Nairobi, Kenya4. Ms. Maria Lucia Leite, Municipal Government of Rio, Brazil5. Mr. Gautam Chatterji, Mumbai Municipal Authority6. Mr. Mann Chhoeun, Municipality of Phnom Penh, Cambodia

Documentation

HSP/WUF/1/DLG.I/Paper 7, The Global Campaign for Secure Tenure: Progress report of theExecutive Director

1. ISSUES

The Dialogue was organized to address the issue of unlawful evictions and to propose means forlocal and international actors to stop evictions, and promote negotiated alternatives. The topic was selectedby the Secretariat based on an assessment of the Global Campaign for Secure Tenure that identified theissue as crucial for the further advancement of the Global Campaign. In an effort to break from the patternof all presentations and little debate, the Dialogue was organized in four separate presentation/dialoguesub-sessions. These were experiences of evictions, present international legal framework for monitoringand stopping evictions, practical local alternatives to eviction, and recommendations by and for local andinternational actors to stop evictions and create conditions for negotiated alternatives.

2. DEBATE

Participants discussed experiences of evictions from Kenya, Philippines, and Cambodia amongother countries. Violent evictions result in loss of life and property and deep distrust and suspicion withinsettlements and between settlements and the state. They generate a view among slum dwellers that theyare not perceived to be human, legal, and nor citizens of the city. A forced eviction is sometimes used asa politic tool to dislocate certain populations and win votes from others. Mayors frequently claim that theevictions are beyond their control and the result of other forces. Slum dwellers in many cities and regionsare mobilizing to stop forced evictions. They recognize that unless they generate a critical mass that is wellorganized, they will not be heard. Power in numbers and coordination among organizations of slumdwellers in various cities provides the basis for effective negotiation with government at all level. Thisenables the possibility of negotiated resettlement and in-situ upgrading as constructive alternatives toeviction. Current evictions taking place in Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Kenya, Philippines and elsewhereheighten the urgency with which this issue needs to be addressed, if the credibility of the United Nationsas a proponent of secure tenure and good governance is to safe-guarded.

The Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing informed participants that there is a legal basis forunderstanding, monitoring and stopping violent forced evictions. The Committee on Economic, Socialand Cultural Rights is charged with the responsibility for monitoring the compliance of Member Statesthat have ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In 1993, theCommission on Human Rights adopted a resolution on forced evictions with explicit reference to theillegality of forced evictions, reaffirming the work of the Committee. Efforts to use internationalinstruments to stop forced evictions require awareness raising and mechanisms, especially at the locallevel. This must begin with a thorough understanding of the root causes of evictions that range from suchas land grabbing, privatization, military occupation (as in occupied Palestinian territories), discrimination,and other forms of social exclusion.

22

Participants reviewed panel presentations (and video) on the experiences of the Favela Barrio Projectin Rio, Brazil and partnerships (NGO, private, slum dweller and public) for slum upgrading in Mumbai,India. Subsequently, they described practical alternatives to evictions, including steps necessary to supportthese.

• The assets of slum dwellers and their organizations are a vital resource for upgrading and resettlement,including knowledge, savings, and organizational capacity.

• Regularlization need not always be the first or most important step in securing tenure, and may needto be resolved incrementally, over time.

• Organizations of slum dwellers should not fall prey to city governments keen on using participatoryrelocation as a "lubricant" for cleansing and rendering their cities suitable for foreign investment.

• Evictions can occur even where operational systems of secure tenure are in place: tenure minimizesbut does not eliminate the possibility of forced eviction.

• Resettlement is a social as well as physical/technical process and needs to incorporate economicinvestment to support livelihoods.

• Need for preventive strategies based on improving livelihoods in rural areas and secondary towns andcities are necessary to mitigate rapid urbanization.

• There are excellent examples of how land can be leveraged as a resource to create developmentoptions for those currently living in informal settlements.

• Forced evictions in cities often disrupt food production, consumption and distribution in both ruraland urban areas.


Participants devoted 50 minutes of the Dialogue to generate concrete recommendations. These are to:

• Establish a group to promote mechanisms for linking systems of eviction monitoring to networks ofinstitutions/individuals with experience in promoting negotiated alternatives. The composition of thegroup should include slum dweller associations, government, local authorities, NGOs, private sectorprofessional organizations.

• Urge the United Nations System to utilize this group and/or other mechanisms to take a position onhow it will monitor and respond to unlawful evictions.

• Undertake surveys and consultation exercises in order to understand slum dweller's perception ofsecurity, which may differ from the statutory basis of legal security of tenure.

• Create open forums for all relevant stakeholders in order to nurture collaborative working relationsamong private sector, slum dwellers, professionals, and government at all levels.

• Explore, test, and legitimize systems of tenure in addition to individual ownership (title)• Monitor the use and allocation of public land.• Incorporate in planning processes the elements of long-term maintenance of shelter and service

improvements in resettlement planning and in-situ upgrading. • Create a structured space and a non-technical language to ensure full participation--especially by

organizations of the urban poor-- in constructive dialogue and negotiation.• Provide a "one-stop-shop" government planning and approval agency that is a "one-stop-shop" in

order to cut the bureaucratic barriers to slum upgrading.• Engage owners of land and structures in the discussions on secure tenure.• Promote direct and full-fledged negotiation with slum dwellers and their organizations in government

efforts to provide secure tenure, undertake in-situ upgrading and, where necessary, and resettlement.• Put into place sufficient benchmarks and realistic timing for consultation if resettlement is

unavoidable.• Ensure municipal governments prioritize in-situ and resettlement within their overall city planning

(including land use, zoning and allocation), and be prepared to take the lead in infrastructure provisionand land allocation (recognizing that the people have an active role to play in production processes).

• Make use of international human rights instruments as an effective means of monitoring andpreventing forced evictions.

23

24

7. MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

Thursday, 2 May 2002 p.m.

Panelists

1. Mr. Omar Noman, Deputy Director, Human Development Report Office, United NationsDevelopment Programme for, New York,

2. Professor Paul Syagga, Professor of Real Estate Economics at the University of Nairobi and dDean, the Faculty of Architecture, Design and Development,

3. Mr. Emiel Wegelin, Economist, Director, UrbAct - International Advisory Services for UrbanAction,Rotterdam, Netherlands. Former Director of the Institute for Housing and UrbanDevelopment Studies, Rotterdam,

4. Dr. Marc Weiss, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Prague Institute for Global UrbanDevelopment, Prague, Czech Republic, and Washington, DC

5. Mr. Jeroen Klink, Direct Adviser of the Mayor of Santo Andre, Secretary for InternationalRelations, Municipality of Santo Andre, Metropolitan Region of Sao Paulo,

6. Mr. Malik Gaye, Team Leader, Relay for Urban Participatory Development, ENDA Tiers Monde,Dakar, Senegal,

7. Dr. A. Ravindra, Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, India, Chairman of the BangaloreUrban Observatory Steering Committee,

8. Mr. Andrew Boraine, Special Advisor to the Minister for Provincial and Local Government inSouth Africa,

9. Mr. Jaime Vasconez, Territorial Co-ordinator of the Metropolitan Municipality of Quito.Formerly, Regional Advisor for the Urban Management Program for Latin America and TheCaribbean

10. Mr. Wahome Muchiri, of the Nation Television, Kenya. (Facilitator).

Documentation

HSP/WUF/1/DLG.1/Paper 8, Preparations for the Global Report on Human Settlements 2003 and the Stateof the World’s Cities 2004,

HSP/WUF/1/DLG.1/Paper 9, Monitoring urban conditions and trends

1. ISSUES

The Dialogue focused on three thematic areas:

• Global monitoring: the UN-HABITAT flagship reports and global monitoring systemestablished by the Global Urban Observatory

• Monitoring the Millennium Development Goal related to Slum Upgrading• City-level monitoring by setting up an urban information infrastructure at the local level for

better policy formulation.

Cognizant of the advocacy value of global reports, the General Assembly has decided that UN-HABITAT should publish a flagship report every year, alternating between the Global Report on HumanSettlements, and the State of the World’s Cities, in order to raise awareness on human settlements and toprovide information on urban conditions and trends around the world.

The latest issues, the Global Report on Human Settlements 2001 and the State of the World’sCities 2001, drew attention to the urgency of addressing the urban problem emerging from anunprecedented growth of urban populations, the impact of globalization which exacerbates urban poverty,as well as to outdated governance systems that do not cater for the needs of the urban poor.

For both reports, the Global Report on Human Settlements 2003 and the State of the World’s

25

Cities 2004, the next theme will be urban poverty, slums and exclusion. While the Global Report in 2003will give a global coverage, the World’s Cities report in 2004 will revolve around the same theme withinmega-cities, with an emphasis on rural-urban linkages.

The choice of this topic has an organizational significance for UN-HABITAT, as it aims tostrengthen the normative framework for the eradication of urban poverty, within which the thematic fociof the two campaigns, the Global Campaign on Urban Governance and the Global Campaign for SecureTenure, fit. The theme of urban poverty, linked to shelter security and social and political exclusion, is alsoclosely associated with the world development agenda as defined in the Millennium Declaration.

Since the advocacy power of these reports is directly proportional to their quality and relevance,the international community must ensure that these reports are combined with appropriate monitoringmechanisms. Such monitoring systems do not only have a global comparative value, but they also havea value in terms of establishing models, based on which national or sub-national monitoring systems canbe strengthened. The Global Urban Observatory, which was established by UN-HABITAT in 1997, hasalready initiated a network of national and local urban observatories that need to be strengthened for thispurpose. Global data collection activities of the GUO constitute a direct input to the UN-HABITAT globalreports.

Monitoring the United Nations Millennium Development Goal on Cities without Slums, namelythe “improvement in the lives of 100 million slum dwellers” by 2020, constitutes a major part of theObservatory’s mission. A ‘Secure Tenure Index’ has been proposed for monitoring the goal, being acomposite index of housing conditions, access to services and legal compliance of structure.

2. DEBATE

The discussions revealed that the present two flagship reports do not clearly differ in terms ofcontent, target, groups, format and style. One single flagship report would help to focus on crucial issues,in order to get the attention of the public and the media, given the scarce resources available. Theimportance of a media strategy was also discussed. Many participants debated whether or not theproduction of global reports could become a multi-stakeholders exercise, involving all partners of theHabitat Agenda.

Participants discussed the value of the existing indicators and indices proposed by UN-HABITAT,particularly the City Development Index and the Secure Tenure Index. It was proposed that the indicatorsmust be approached in a phased style. The urgent (priority) indicators should be analyzed at the first phase,and others should be covered at a later phase. The present data collection infrastructure was alsodiscussed, with an intense debate on how data produced at the local level could feed the national andglobal levels with relevant indicators in order to monitor the national and global trends. While some cityrepresentatives were in the opinion that cities should generate their own data regardless of internationalreporting systems, other representatives argued that global standards are extremely useful for comparingthemselves to the rest of the world. Those cities consider UN-HABITAT methods and tools as extremelyvaluable in order to monitor their own performances and progress.

The role of intra-city differentials was emphasized by a large number of participants. Many cityrepresentatives underlined the need for intra-city measures in order to highlight important gaps in mostdevelopment issues between the different areas of cities. It was also suggested that UN-HABITATstrengthens its use of scientific methods in order to ensure a more streamlined and a cost-effective wayof analyzing indicators. Global Urban experience has shown that both quantitative and qualitativemonitoring should be closely linked. .

Experiences presented by participants on local and national monitoring systens lead to adiscussion on the value of an open and participatory assessment of policies and practices for local andnational learning processes.


26

• A very large number of participants recommended that UN-HABITAT consider the production of oneflagship report instead of two. Many participants advised that UN-HABITAT invest in a strong mediastrategy and view the production of global reports as a multi-stakeholders exercise, involving allpartners of the Habitat Agenda. It was also strongly recommended that UN-HABITAT regularlyevaluate the impact of flagship reports.

• Some participants recommended that UN-HABITAT continue the work initiated on the developmentof a limited set of indicators and indices, including a number of qualitative measures. In particular,it was advised to pursue the work on the Secure Tenure Index in order to monitor the MillenniumDevelopment Goal on Cities without Slums, with the active participation of all partners at the locallevel.

• It was also recommended that UN-HABITAT takes measures to avoid changing definitions and thescope of indicators very often, so as to enable the comparison of the ‘likes’ over time. UN-HABITATwas also requested to focus and prioritize its monitoring activities in view of resource constraints.

27

Annex II

REPORTS ON DIALOGUES II – SUSTAINABLE URBANIZATION

As indicated in paragraph 7 of the report of the Subgroup on the Objectives of and WorkingArrangements for the World Urban Forum, (see annex IV of the present report), the summaries of theChairs which appear in annex I and annex II intend to summarize the main issues and objectives raisedduring the presentation and discussions. These summaries have been endorsed by the plenary as anaccurate reflection of what transpired in the dialogues. The plenary has clarified that the recommendationsmade in these summaries are not expected to reflect a consensus but the views of a number of speakersand partners which are not necessarily shared by all participants.

28

1. INTRODUCTORY SESSION ON SUSTAINABLE URBANIZATION

Monday, 29 April, p.m.

Panelists

1. Hon. Sören Häggroth, State Secretary for Housing and Deputy Minister for Finance, Sweden (Chair)2. Mr. Bai-Maas Taal, DPDL, UNEP, (Keynote Statement)3. Mr. David Painter, US-AID, (Keynote Statement)4. Ms. Kaarin Taipale, Chairperson, ICLEI (Keynote Statement)5. Mr. Jonas Rabinovitch, UNDP, (Keynote Statement)

Thematic Prospectuses (Dialogues II)

Sustainability of cities (Alan Lloyd, Chairman WACLAC, President IULA)The Role of cities in sustainable development (Dr. Marc A. Weiss, Chairman, Prague Institute for

Global Urban Development)The Rural dimension of sustainable urbanisation (Mr. Jonas Rabinovitch, UNDP)The Management of HIV/AIDS pandemic at the local level (Dr. Caroline Nyamai, AfriAfya)Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (Mr. Kalyan Ray, UN-HABITAT)Thematic Prospectuses (Dialogues I)

City-to-City Cooperation (Mr. Paul Bongers, Consultant, UN-HABITAT)

Documentation

UN- HABITAT Preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD)

Four Dialogues II background papers on Agenda item 4:

HSP/WUF/1/DLG.II/ Paper 1, Sustainability of Cities,

HSP/WUF/1/DLG.II/ Paper 2, The role of cities in sustainable development,

HSP/WUF/1/DLG.II/ Paper 3, The rural dimensions of sustainable urbanisation,

HSP/WUF/1/DLG.II/ Paper 4, The management of HIV/AIDS pandemic at the local level.

One Dialogues I background paper:

HSP/WUF/1/DLG.I/ Paper 2, City-to-city cooperation, transfers and international exchanges based ondocumented best practices, good policies and action plans

1. ISSUES

Cities have a leading role in economic transformation and growth – they are centres of innovationand engines of economic development, mobilising investment and achieving unprecedented gains inproductivity. Cities also play a leading role in social advancement and political transformation. Clearly,cities and human settlements give the most promising opportunities for social and economic advancement.But the reality is often very different and the promise is – in many cities - largely unrealised. Poverty,environmental degradation, inequalities, and social tension seem to be the actual situation in the cities. This is not sustainable urbanisation.

29

The fundamental bottlenecks to sustainable urbanisation, however, are local implementationcapacities and sound governance - rather than lack of technology, funding, or international agreements(although these are certainly important) The task of overcoming these bottlenecks touches on manydifferent topics and issues such as decentralisation, institutional reform, training and capacity-building,empowerment, governance, broad-based participatory decision-making, etc.

With these as the fundamental issues to be faced, UN-Habitat has identified three relatedchallenges which are of special relevance to the WSSD preparatory process:

• The vital contributions which cities and other human settlements can and should make to social,economic and environmental sustainability are generally not being realised;

• Local actors, especially local authorities and their partners, generally lack the capacity to effectivelyplay their many important roles in sustainable urbanisation;

• External support to local action is often supply-driven, disjointed, poorly co-ordinated, andcollectively inefficient.

2. ORIENTATIONS FOR DIALOGUES II

Sustainable Urbanisation was characterised in several ways: • it is a dynamic process, rapidly changing but difficult to control;• it is widely encompassing – bringing together urban and rural and looking at whole systems of

human settlements from village to town to city to metropolis;• it is multi-dimensional, going beyond environmental to include economic and social and political-

institutional sustainability;• it deals directly with the inter-relationships between cities and the environment, at both metropolitan,

sub-national, national and global levels.

Sustainable urbanisation is still a new approach and needs further definition and commonunderstanding. As is the case for sustainable development, it goes beyond environmental factors to includesocial, economic and political-institutional factors. It is a dynamic process at the heart of global andnational development. Sustainable urbanisation encompasses both urban and rural areas and focuses ontheir diverse linkages and footprints.

Other points of emphasis included good governance, mobilisation of local resources, andpartnerships.

It was suggested that participants in Dialogue II should focus their attention on the following“Five Points” for organising their thinking and their contributions:

1. With respect to the thematic topic under discussion, what is the promise of sustainableurbanisation?

2. What are the key challenges and tasks associated with sustainable urbanisation in relation to thethree key issues?• helping cities to realise their crucial contributions to sustainable development;• assisting local actors, especially local authorities and their partners, to improve their planning,

implementation and management capacities;• developing mechanisms to promote cohesion and collective efficiency in the international

support to local capacity building.3. In what ways can these opportunities and challenges be effectively addressed?4. What are the potential recommendations for the WSSD preparatory process in relation to the tasks

mentioned under (2), and the responses mentioned under (3)?5. What “partnership implementation commitments” can be identified, developed and documented

for putting forward to PrepCom-4 in Bali

The proposed “Millennium Cities Campaign” (WACLAC) was recognised as an important “model”for awareness building and exchange of lessons learnt, and thereby engaging individual cities and towns

30

world-wide in the implementation of the UN Millennium Declaration. It was recommended that thiscampaign and others like it should be supported by the UN and other agencies.

Different thematic and institutional interests have different ideas about and viewpoints on“sustainable urbanisation”; this diversity should be welcomed, as the different perspectives can bebrought together to give a more balanced and broad-based understanding.

Issues such as gender, or HIV/AIDS, or democratisation and empowerment, are also important for“sustainable urbanisation” and should therefore receive specific attention in the deliberations and debates.

31

2. SUSTAINABILITY OF CITIES

Tuesday, 30 April, a.m.

Panelists

1. Mr. Alan Lloyd, Chairman WACLAC, President IULA (Chair)

Partnership 1:2. Perspective of City Authorities: Mr. Patrick G.C. Tembo, Mayor of Kitwe City Council Zambia3. Perspective of International Support Programmes – Ms. Wilma van Esch, Programme Officer ILO SEED – EMP/INVEST4. Perspectives of Donors – Prof. Han Verschure, Leuven University, Belgium.

Partnership 2:5. Perspectives of City Authorities: Mr. Anura Dassanayake, Ministry of Urban Development,

Housing & Construction, Colombo, Sri Lanka6. Perspective of International Support Programmes – Mr. El Housseynou LY, IAGU, Dakar,

Senegal.7. Perspectives of Donors – Mr. Tony Llyod-Jones, DFID and co-leader of UK delegation

Partnership 3:8. Perspective of City Authorities: Mr. Abdelaziz El Mouatez, Councilor, Essaouira Municipal

Council, Morocco.9. Perspective of International Support Programmes – Mr. Rob de Jong, Urban Environment,

DPDL, UNEP.

Documentation

HSP/WUF/1/DLG.II/ Paper 1, Preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development: TheSustainability of Cities.

UN- HABITAT Preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD).

1. ISSUES

This session of Dialogue II addressed the theme “Sustainability of Cities” – the issues whichsurround sustainable development at the individual city level. Evidence from around the world stronglysuggests that the most fundamental bottlenecks to the sustainability of cities are local implementationcapacity and sound governance, rather than lack of technology, funding, or international agreements(although these are important) The task of overcoming these bottlenecks – and moving towardsustainability of cities - touches on such issues as decentralisation, institutional reform, training andcapacity-building, good governance, partnerships, and broad-based participatory decision-making andmanagement.

This general perspective has led UN-Habitat to identify three specific challenges as the focus ofits efforts toward sustainability of cities:

• Firstly, cities need help in order to realise their crucial contribution to sustainable development.

• Secondly, local actors, especially local authorities and their partners need assistance to improve theirplanning and management capacity.

• Thirdly, there is need for mechanisms to promote cohesion and collective efficiency in the

32

international support to local capacity building.

It is widely agreed that these key challenges – and the bottlenecks noted above – can best beaddressed through partnerships. (Equally, partnership agreements are an intended output of Dialogue II). Accordingly, the session was organised around three specific partnership ideas: one at local level, oneat national level, and one at global level. In order to highlight the issues at these different levels as seenfrom different perspectives, each of the partnership proposals was examined by a panel representing:

Local authorities International support programmes Donors / Financial support.

Partnership 1:A partnership on supporting local capacity building through demonstration/replication activities forsustainable urban development planning, implementation and management.

Partnership 2:A partnership commitment for strengthening nationally the capacities of local governments, associationsof local authorities and learning institutions to routinely integrate the lessons of experience from localdemonstrations into national sustainable urbanisation and poverty alleviation policies, strategies andassociated legal frameworks.

Partnership 3:A partnership commitment for developing global norms for sustainable urbanisation and relatedmultilateral environment agreements (MEAs) together with mechanisms for both, contribution of localneeds/ experiences and local responses in terms of adaptation and implementation.

2. DEBATE

Numerous city and government representatives reported on the key challenges they face forsustainability, for instance solid waste, water supply, sanitation, employment, etc., and a variety ofexperiences were described and discussed. The use of “community contracts” (Dar es Salaam) providedan effective way to organise a community to take responsibility for solid waste collection while also up-grading local skills and generating local income.

Cities reported on experiences with Local Agenda 21 activities (Nakuru, Vinh) and with SCPinitiatives (Kitwe, Leningrad-Vijborg-Kirishi) and commended these approaches as being quite helpfulin organising local actions.

Strategic planning (including regional planning) was discussed and widely agreed to be anessential element for more sustainable cities. Strategic means broad-based, flexible, over-all guidance (notland use or master planning), encompassing environmental, economic, spatial, and social dimensions anddone in a partnership, participatory way.

Many difficulties were reported because of the lack of an appropriate legal and regulatoryframework for local authorities and local action, and also because of a lack of financial resources at thelocal level. However, some initiatives to decentralise authority and finance, and to empower localauthorities, were reported. The need for an effective system to channel national support to local actionswas also emphasised (Morocco, Gambia, Uganda). The potentially valuable role of local experience asan input to national policy and programmes is generally not understood.

Local capacity development is clearly a felt need virtually everywhere. But in addition to supportto local authorities, capacity-development is also needed for other partners (such as local communities,local private sector) – and also for the national government bodies which should support local actions.Several calls were made for international programmes to expand their capacity-development work.

33

Although some examples of good co-ordination among UN and other external agencies werereported (e.g. UN-Habitat with ILO, UNEP with UN-Habitat), these were generally worked out at the locallevel or at the programme level. It is felt that co-ordination at policy levels is still poor, with too manyinterventions working independently of each other.

There was a fear that the “Urban Dimension” of sustainable development was losing emphasisin the WSSD preparatory process; it was suggested that international agencies develop commonapproaches to raise the profile of sustainable urbanisation as a core aspect of WSSD.

The importance of local actions for implementing global environmental norms and agreementswas emphasised; indeed, it was felt that many of the major global issues could not be effectively addressedunless local authorities and local partners are much more closely involved in policy formulation,programme development, and – especially – implementation.

Finally, there were some issues which were highlighted as not having received sufficient attentionin the discussions: gender, population, cultural heritage.


Virtually all session participants agreed that partnerships are essential for effective implementationof actions aimed at the sustainability of cities.

Local capacity development and support is needed for facilitating meaningful and effectiveinvolvement of the full range of partners, including community groups, NGOs, private sector, etc.,and should be focused more clearly at the operational and implementation needs of those partners andof their partnerships.

Good governance plays a crucial role in sustainability, and key elements of good governance includedecentralisation, legal and financial empowerment at the local level, and openness to broad-based civilsociety participation and partnerships.

Strategic planning and regional planning are important institutional supports to an integrated approachto the sustainability of cities and are particularly important for bringing together the environmental,physical-spatial, economic and social dimensions.

Better co-ordination among donors and international programmes is needed, particularly in relationto interventions at the local level.

Local resource mobilisation should be much more emphasised and utilised.

34

3. THE ROLE OF CITIES IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Tuesday, 30 April, p.m.

Panelists1. Mrs. Mercedes Bresso, President, UTO-FMCU (Chair)2. Mr. Aser Cortines, Director, Caixa Economica Federal Brazil3. Mr. John Flora, Director,

Transport, water and urban division, World Bank,3. Dr. Julius Malombe, Urban specialist, Ministry of Local Government, Kenya,4. Ms. Mary-Jane Ortega, Mayor, san Fernando, Philippines5. Ms. Kaarin Taipale, Chair, International Council for Local Environment Initiatives6. Dr. Marc Weiss, Chair, Prague Institute for Global Urban Development

Documentation

HSP/WUF/1/DLG.II/Paper 2, Preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development: Therole of local authorities in national and international development.

1. ISSUES

The dialogue focused on two sets of related issues: (a) the contribution of cities and local authorities inaddressing major social, economic and environmental issues; and (b) measures and actions that need tobe taken for cities to realise their full potential in forging more sustainable urbanisation and development.The presentations focused on lessons learned from recent experience in Africa, Asia, Europe, LatinAmerica and North America. These included issues ranging from partnerships and participation betweenpublic, private and civil society organisations in poverty reduction and social inclusion; theimplementation of Local Agendas 21and what cities are doing in terms of climate protection; local andmetropolitan strategies for urban economic development in response to globalisation; and the reform ofurban policies and legislation.

2. DEBATE

The debate clearly underlined the fact that sustainable development in general, and sustainableurbanisation in particular is no longer a predominantly ecological or environmental issue. Rather, it iscomposed of a set of issues including poverty and job creation, gender equality and social inclusion,governance and government policy and legislation. Decentralisation and the empowerment of localauthorities were often repeated issues with a particular need to devolve financial powers and resourcestogether with responsibilities and accountability. One particular issue that was raised was that municipaland provincial fiscality, based primarily on real estate, road and car registration taxes, are contradictoryto more sustainable urbanisation as these taxes encourage cities and local authorities to promote real estatedevelopment and the use of cars and thus urban sprawl. Another issue that was raised was the fact that allspheres of government tend to think and act sectorally, which does not correspond to how people, andparticularly the urban poor, live their lives and define their priorities. Several participants stressed the needto forge partnerships and participation between all spheres of government and with all stakeholders, andthe urban poor in particular, for policy and strategy development and implementation. The debate alsocentered on the need for reviewing and reforming urban legislation; in many developing countries thereis an absence of urban policies and legislation and where these do exist, they are not readily accessibleor known to the majority of stakeholders.

There was general agreement that economic development and sustainable urbanisation need notbe at loggerheads. Economic development is an absolute necessity and priority for many cities in orderto generate jobs to combat poverty and exclusion as well as the resources and revenues required toextending universal coverage of urban infrastructure and basic services. Increasingly, the productivity ofand wealth of nations are dependent on the productivity and wealth of cities. Effective urban economicdevelopment, however, requires strategic planning. Without strategic planning, development tends tooccur in a haphazard and opportunistic manner. One effective strategy is to anchor development initiativeswith the region and rural hinterland, to harness the combined resources, talents and people, including

35

social capital and cultural assets to provide both competitive advantages as well as a unique sense of place.Last but not least, economic and social sustainability is simply not possible when a significant portion ofthe urban population lives in abject poverty and is socially and politically excluded. Deliberate policiesand action plans for urban poverty reduction are required, including slum upgrading, skills training,entrepreneurship development and access to credit and micro-credit.

Barriers to sustainable urban economic and social development also need to be addressed. Theseare typically found in: (1) lack of clear definition of role and responsibilities between different spheresof government, poor urban governance and lack of urban management and planning capability; (2)competing jurisdictions between different spheres of government and entities responsible for the provisionof public services; and, (3) weak fiscal authority and lack of transparency and reliability in inter-governmental transfers.

The informal sector, which often represents a major part of the urban economy in developingcountry cities needs to be recognised and guided in its location and development, rather than simplytolerated or victimised. Efforts are required to bridge the gap between formal and informal sectors of theeconomy.

While the priorities for local sustainability are overcoming poverty and equity, enhancing security andpreventing environmental degradation, there is a need to pay more attention to social capital and culturalvitality in order to foster citizenship and civic engagement. Efforts should focus on youth so as to instilla sense of environmental awareness for an early age and to bring about long-term changes in consumptionpatterns.

3. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

• Urbanization needs to be guided to reap the maximum benefit for all and strategic planning is akey instrument to this end.

• Urban management and the brokering of multi-stakeholder involvement is required rather thanurban administration which tends to be bureaucratic.

• Participatory planning and decision-making is crucial to more sustainable social and economicdevelopment and environmental protection.

• Equitable distribution of benefits of development rather than the distribution of resources isrequired and essential to combining efficiency, productivity and equity.

• Cities are essential to national development. The national economy depends on the performanceof the urban economy and regional economic development strategies represent an effectiveapproach to harnessing social, financial, natural and human resources to make cities moreproductive and competitive.

• Cities and local authorities must be included as major stakeholders and actors in the formulationand implementation of national poverty reduction policies and strategies as poverty is increasinglyan urban phenomenon.

• Coordination and cooperation between of all spheres of government is required to promotecoherence among and mutual support between social, economic and fiscal policies and legislation.

• Cities have a lot to learn from each other and city-to-city cooperation should be mainstreamedboth nationally and internationally.

• There is a need for the systematic documentation and dissemination of urban policies andlegislation both as a means to informing all stakeholders and the general public and as a meansto fostering mutual learning between cities internationally.

36

4. THE RURAL DIMENSION OF SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Wednesday, 1 May, a.m.

Panelists

1. Dr. Kangethe Gitu, Former Permanent Secretary, Ministries of Planning and Labour, Republic of Kenya (Chair),2. Prof. Om Prakash Mathur, Professor of Housing and Urban Economics, National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, New Delhi, India, 3. Prof. P. Nkondi Mbaki, Minister of Public Works, Regional and Urban Planning, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 4. Ms. Mara Biasi Ferrari Pinto, Executive Director, Brazilian Institute of Municipal Administration 5. Mr. Desmond Halley, Deputy Mayor of East London, South Africa 6. Mr. Jonas Rabinovitch, Technical Advisor, UNDP, BDP/Institutional Development Group7. Dr. Graham Tipple, University of Newcastle, UK (Rapporteur)

Documentation

HSP/WUF/1/DLG.II/Paper 3, The rural dimension of sustainable urban development (draft themepaper for the Governing Council at its nineteenth session)

1. ISSUES

The purpose of the Dialogue was to discuss the impact of sustainable urban development on rural areas,assess past and present policies designed to address urban-rural linkages and make relevantrecommendations. The output of the Dialogue was envisaged as a set of recommendations designed toachieve a number of objectives, the key ones being: (i) adequate capacity of cities and towns to absorbexcess rural population; (ii) improved quality of life of urban inhabitants, including migrants from ruralareas; (iii) improved quality of life of the population remaining in rural areas; (iv) spreading of the benefitsof urbanisation to all parts of national territories, including better access to physical infrastructure andsocial services; (v) stimulation of productive activities within rural areas through investment in physicalinfrastructure; and (vi) elimination or minimisation of negative environmental impacts of urbanisation onrural areas. In doing this, and in order to come up with recommendations based on past experience andemerging realities, the Dialogue addressed the following major conceptual and policy questions. Firstly,is the rural-urban dichotomy debate now counterproductive and should urban and rural areas be seen asexisting in a human settlements continuum? Secondly, should Governments now move away from policiesdesigned to reduce rural-to-urban migration, given the relative lack of success of such policies? Thirdly,what policies and strategies should Governments pursue to maximise the positive and minimise thenegative impacts of urbanisation on rural areas?

2. DEBATE

Several participants commended UN-HABITAT for holding the Dialogue and the World UrbanForum in general and expressed their interest in sharing experiences.

Most participants agreed that urbanisation is inevitable while some expressed the view that enhancingrural development would encourage people to stay in rural areas. Evidence was quoted from severalcountries that policies to curb rural-urban migration have failed. Such policies are also very costly andtrying to restrict labour movement can create economic distortions. Instead, most participants favouredthe view that attention should be shifted to policies that better manage urbanisation. Most participants alsoagreed that the rural-urban dichotomy debate is counterproductive and urban and rural areas should beseen as parts of the human settlements continuum. On the other hand, some participants argued that urbanand rural areas have very different roles.

37

One of the problems identified by several participants was the difference between urban and ruralareas. It was suggested by some in the discussion that urban and rural areas should be made morecompatible. Examples were given of projects designed to narrow the gap between modern towns and poorrural communities, including measures to strengthen infrastructure and education and to increaseproductivity and create employment in rural areas.

Most participants agreed to the need to develop secondary and tertiary towns and several relevantprogrammes/projects were described. Intermediate cities would help to cushion the radical change fromrural to urban and were described as an opportunity to create cohesion between urban and ruralinhabitants. Several delegates mentioned urban and peri-urban agriculture as a means to combat poverty.

Some delegates described integrated policies that approach issues such as housing in both urbanand rural areas. It was emphasized that bringing the poor to the centre of development processescontributes to sustainable development and community participation creates trust and a sense ofownership in the community.

Some delegates suggested an integrated approach to urban and rural areas could be achieved throughphysical planning. It was emphasized that the concerned communities should be involved in the planningprocess.

Several participants commented on the issue of land parceling typical of many African countries,which can make agricultural production inefficient and contribute to poverty in rural areas. It was pointedout that social and cultural issues such as people’s relationship to land need to be considered by policymakers.

It was argued that, although urbanisation is a universal phenomenon, the underlying causes aredifferent from country to country and need to be researched, so that policies are based on knowledge.Some participants mentioned the need to research the issue of why urbanisation in some countries is notmatched by economic growth.

Some participants commented on the impact of globalisation on urbanisation. One of the speakersexpressed doubt whether globalisation increases rural-urban migration, as globalisation creates demandfor highly specialised labour, such as software and financial specialists. A very interesting example of theeffects of globalisation is China, where the Government is adopting policies to encourage rural-urbanmigration in order to combat the poverty of rural farmers.

It was pointed out that while local development is best tackled by local authorities, there is a need toconsider the relationships between different levels of government and different institutions.

3. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

• Policy makers need to accept that urbanisation is inevitable;• Policy makers need to focus on managing urbanisation rather than fighting it;• Development policies should deal with urban and rural areas together in a holistic manner,

including the development of small and medium-sized towns;• Community participation and capacity building for communities is important;• More research on the causes and effects of urbanisation is necessary.

38

5. MANAGING HIV/AIDS PANDEMIC AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

Wednesday 1 May 2002, p.m.

The Dialogue to discuss the management of the HIV/AIDS pandemic at the local level wasorganized into three segments: Voices of the people, voices of Local authorities and responses fromnational, international and UN agencies.

Participants

1. Ms. Jan Peterson, International Secretary, Huairou Commission (Chair),Segment 1: Voices From the People,2. Patricia Atieno, HIV/AIDS widow from Kibera, Nairobi, living with AIDS,3. Kibera Laini Saba Youth Group Association,4. Jacinta Mumbua, HIV/AIDS orphan from Kibera, Nairobi,5. Dr. Caroline Nyamai- Coordinator of Afri Afya,6. Ms. Robina Biteyi- AMREF,7. Dr. David Elkins-Futures Group,8. Ms. Kasolo Nabaggala, National Association of Women, Uganda,Segment 2: Voices of Local Authorities,9. Professor Babacar Kante, UN AMICALL,10. Mr. Mbuso Dlamini, Manzini, Swaziland,11. Ms. Julie Dyer, Health Officer, Msunduzi Municipality, South Africa,Segment 3: Response from National/International/UN Agencies,12. Ms. Catia Sanches, Health Director, State of Rio de Janiero, Brazil,13. Dr. Wiwat Rojanapithayakorn, Senior Adviser, International Healthy Policy Programme, Thailand,14. Dr. Warren Naamara, UNAIDS Country Programme Adviser, Nairobi,15. Dr. Moses Sichone, Regional Adviser HIV/AIDS, UNICEF,16. Dr. Vincent Habiyambere, WHO, Geneva.

Documentation

HSP/WUF/1/DLGII/Paper 4, The management of the HIV/AIDS pandemic at the local level

1. ISSUES

In the context of the Millennium Declaration adopted by member states of the United Nations,to halt and begin to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS, the Habitat Agenda and the United Nations GeneralAssembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS in June 2001, UN-Habitat has initiated a process to bring theissue of HIV/AIDS in the context of sustainable urbanization. UN-HABITAT is in the process ofdeveloping initiatives that link HIV/AIDS to shelter and Human settlements development and addressfactors that make individuals, communities particularly vulnerable to HIV infection, such as economicinsecurity, poverty (including lack of adequate living conditions), lack of secure tenure, social exclusion,lack of empowerment of women and all types of social exploitation of women, girls and boys.

There is increasing evidence that the lack of adequate shelter has a direct impact on the preventionof HIV/AIDS and also the care and support of those infected and affected by the epidemic. This isparticularly so in urban slum environments where the capacity of the people and the local authorities torespond and provide services has been severely weakened by the impact of the epidemic. The capacityof local authorities to deal with the HIV/AIDS pandemic is also limited.

The objectives of the dialogue of addressing HIV/AIDS at the local level was address those issuesrelated to shelter and human settlements development with a special focus on the most vulnerable,especially the HIV/AIDS orphans

39

2. DEBATE

The Executive Director, UN-HABITAT opened the debate by emphasizing the fact that theHIV/AIDS pandemic has serious impacts on human settlements development. The UN-HABITATinitiative on HIV/AIDS and shelter, especially for the orphans and the local authority capacity buildingprogrammes were highlighted.

During the segment on ‘Voices from the people’, a skit from local community highlighted issuesfaced by slum dwellers as a result of HIV/AIDS. The debate touched on the direct link between povertyand HIV/AIDS. In this context, it was observed that grassroots organizations need to organize themselvesto deal with the epidemic. Innovative ways of peer-to-peer response have proved effective in dealing withthe spread of the epidemic. The need to make resources available at the local level as well as the urgentneed to support legislative/policy reforms such as land reform, the review of discriminatory laws,inheritance and succession laws were identified as critical elements to achieving positive impacts. The roleof family, in all its forms, was highlighted as critical in developing community support systems for theHIV/AIDS affected persons, especially the children in distress. Adequate shelter was identified as a keyelement in managing the epidemic. This should include access to services, adequate infrastructure andprivacy especially for the infected and for HIV/AIDS orphans. The key issues requiring strengtheningwere identified as : (a) a collaborative approach involving all stakeholders at the local level, (b) focus oninterventions at local level to ensure direct access to services (treatment, counseling, etc) , and (c) adequateshelter and security of tenure as an important element of the management of HIV/AIDS.

The debate during the segment on ‘ Voices of Local Authorities’ focussed on the many key issues.At the local level, HIV/AIDS was seen not only as a health issue. Its impacts on the local economy,municipal staff, the social fabric of the city and the revenue of local authorities were highlighted.Decentralization policies at national level and delegation of various powers and responsibilities at locallevel, including management of HIV/AIDS pandemic were identified as a key prerequisite. Localleadership was essential to put the HIV/AIDS agenda as a part of the development agenda. Multi-sectoralresponses need to be coordinated at local level and the role of local authorities is important. For this,capacity of local authorities and all stakeholders need to be developed to prepare a local HIV/AIDSmanagement strategy. For effective implementation of HIV/AIDS programmes, an inclusive, transparentand participatory systems approach was advocated.

Responses from National, International/UN institutions discussed the importance of mobilizingleadership at all levels, and making resources available at local level. International and nationalcommitment to support action by local and national leaders stressed. The need for inter-sectoralcollaboration was highlighted.


• Mainstreaming/integrating HIV/AIDS intervention in all sectors is critical but more so at the locallevel

• National Policy articulating the role of local authorities is necessary in the fight against HIV/AIDS(as in case of Thailand, Uganda and Brazil). National policies for prevention of spread of HIVinfection are important, but needs strong political and financial commitment at all levels ofgovernments. It was highlighted that local community focussed actions, supported by local authoritiesand national governments have resulted in a drop in prevalence rates in Uganda and Brazil andThailand and these can be replicated in other countries.

• Adequate shelter and security of tenure are essential for care and treatment of HIV/AIDS affectedpersons, especially the children and orphans. UN-HABITAT along with other partners

• needs to develop special programmes, and mainstream HIV/AIDS component within the Citieswithout Slums initiative.

• Good governance is a key to a successful HIV/AIDS programme at local level. Inclusive, transparent

40

and participatory systems approach for effective implementation of HIV/AIDS programmes is neededat local level.

• More efforts are needed to build capacity of local authorities to integrate HIV/AIDS within the overallperspective of human settlements development.

41

6. PRO-POOR WATER AND SANITATION FOR CITIES

Thursday, 2 May 2002, a.m.

Panelists

1. Sir Richard Jolly, Water Supply & Sanitation Collaborative Council, Geneva (Chair),2. Mr. Ashok Chatterjee, WSSCC, Pune, India,3. Ms. N. Dube, Speaker of the Ethekwini Council (formerly Durban), Social Economic Department Committee, SALGA, South Africa,

4. Mr. Malik Gaye, ENDA Tiers Monde, Dakar, Senegal,5. Hon. Uhuru Kenyatta, Minister for Local Authorities, Government of Kenya,6. Ms. Sheela Patel, SPARC, Mumbai, India.

1. ISSUES

The Millennium Declaration has set a clear goal of achieving significant improvement in the livesof at least 100 million slum dwellers by 2020. Providing safe water and effective and hygienic sanitationto the urban poor will be a central challenge to achieve this goal.

The Chairman proposed three key challenges. Firstly that the goal of improved water andsanitation coverage is achievable if we can effectively mobilise local resources; secondly that there aremany examples of good practices from around the world which need to be shared and; thirdlycommunities are ready to take action.

The meeting was presented with information that current methods of assessing levels of servicescoverage particularly amongst the urban poor, were inaccurate and that national statistics masked the verylow levels of service provision that actually prevailed in peri-urban areas. The situation with respect toavailability of water resources in many urban settlements, particularly in Africa is very severe. Increasesin the production of waste results in many of these scarce resources being further depleted.

2. DEBATE

The meeting underscored the importance of water and sanitation as a foundation for sustainabledevelopment of urban settlements. But in order to be sustainable, new and innovative methods offinancing and of mobilisation of local resources were necessary.

In terms of policy development, the meeting underscored the importance of ensuring thatlegislation relating to water management applied the principles of decentralisation and that local policiesrelating to urban planning, made due provision for water and sanitation

The dialogue discussed the need to consider an appropriate range of technology options andparticularly when local conditions made the use of conventional technologies inappropriate.

Much of the discussion concerned the relationship between local authorities and communities inworking together as providers of services. Good examples of community sanitation were presented. Representatives from local authorities fully agreed that communities are becoming increasinglyempowered to demand services and that they have developed new and innovative ways of engaging indialogues. Establishing community-friendly local authorities can offer new approaches for engaging thepublic, which enable local resources to be efficiently mobilised in the pursuit of improved water andsanitation services particularly for the urban poor.

42


• It was proposed that an important area for capacity building in local authorities should the effectivemobilisation community involvement in the provision of basic services.

• The meeting resolved that there was an urgent need to develop practical, realistic assessments to bemade of coverage of basic services of water and sanitation, in order that the limited resources couldbe channeled more effectively.

• The meeting concluded that the true costs of lack of basic services would be reflected in the increasedproportion of water and waste-related epidemics.

• Investments in the water and sanitation sector should be from all partners and in both financial andhuman resources, particularly with respect to mobilising the community efforts.

• In terms of policies to support service coverage for water and sanitation, legislative requirementsshould cover all relevant sectors not only water ministries, but those involving management of localauthorities

• There is an increased need for collaboration amongst local authorities and the various actors atcommunity level. The establishment of a collaborative framework amongst the local authorities andcommunities in cities was deemed an important first step in the process. Successes achieved in thefield of sanitation can provide a new way to start liaison for other services.

43

Annex III

CONCLUSIONS BY THE CHAIR OF DIALOGUES II ON SUSTAINABLE URBANISATION

1. Introduction

1. In the week from 29 April to 3 May 2002, in the context of the first Session of the World UrbanForum, some 400 Habitat Agenda partners from national governments, inter-governmental organisations,local authorities and their associations, non-governmental organisations, community based organisations,slum dwellers, and experts came together in Nairobi for a series of half-day dialogues on “sustainableurbanisation”. The dialogues were designed to prepare for the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment (WSSD) and had three objectives: A first objective was to ensure that participants are fullyaware of the agreed focus of UN-Habitat in relation to the WSSD, and also to develop a clearerunderstanding of what is meant by “sustainable urbanisation” in this context, so that the efforts of diversepartners will be more coherent, consistent, and mutually reinforcing. A second was to strengthencollective understanding of the key challenges of sustainable urbanisation, using the thematic dialoguesto further develop and synthesise different perspectives and ideas, thus leading to concrete conclusionsfor the WSSD preparatory process. A third objective was to jointly review and further developPartnership Implementation Commitments, organised as type-2 outcomes of WSSD which can be feddirectly into the preparatory process during PrepCom-4 in Bali.

2. In order to achieve these objectives the dialogue series was initiated with an Introductory Session,to create a common base of understanding and to commit participants to the approach, after which therewere six Thematic Dialogues, to explore the core ideas of sustainable urbanisation from differentperspectives; finally, there was a Closing Session, to bring together and review the ideas and results fromthe earlier dialogues, and re-confirm shared understandings and common commitments, in a report to bepresented to the over-all WUF final plenary. The six themes addressed in the individual dialogues were: (a) sustainability of cities; (b) the role of cities in sustainable development; (c) the rural dimension ofsustainable urbanisation; (d) the management of HIV/AIDS pandemic at the local level; (e) water,sanitation and hygiene, and (f) city-to-city co-operation. For each of these thematic dialogues abackground paper had been prepared by the secretariat, and contributions from carefully selected panellistsinitiated a lively debate, which led to the following principal conclusions.

2. What is “Sustainable Urbanisation”?

3. “Sustainable Urbanisation”, as discussed and elaborated during the dialogue series, has a numberof special characteristics. It is, of course, a process – and a very dynamic one. Most important, it is multi-dimensional – it includes not only environmental but also social, economic, and political-institutionalsustainability – and it brings together urban and rural, encompassing the full range of human settlementsfrom village to town to city to metropolis. In this way, sustainable urbanisation brings under one headingthe crucial linkages between cities and their environment, at local, metropolitan, regional, national andglobal levels. It thus provides, for example, a framework for dealing with the environmental impact ofcities on their hinterlands, or with the economic relationships and ecological linkages between town andcountryside. By taking this wider view, sustainable urbanisation moves beyond sterile arguments abouturban versus rural, accepts the reality of urban growth and migration among human settlements, andconcentrates on effective management of the process.

4. Poverty, gender inequality, and deprivation are central challenges to sustainable urbanisation –no process of urbanisation or development will be sustainable unless it successfully addresses these issues. This means that economic and social dimensions are crucial for sustainable urbanisation, in humansettlements of all sizes. It also means that the scourge of HIV/AIDS, which so powerfully impacts on citiesand poverty, is a vital concerns to be integrated into sustainable urbanisation.

5. Good governance (embracing local authorities, other spheres of government, and civil society)

44

is another core concern, being an essential mechanism of the urbanisation process. Local authoritiesendowed with adequate powers, resources, and operational capacity, combined with empowered andcapable communities and other local partners, are at the heart of sustainable urbanisation. Water andsanitation in human settlements, for instance, are vital for health and for economic prosperity – especiallyfor the poor - and for sustainability; but if the current inadequate provisions are to be corrected,communities and civil society and local government will have to work together.

6. Sustainable urbanisation has both a short-term and a long-term perspective: it is concerned notonly with current problems, it also looks ahead, to deal with future issues and situations, not only inrelation to the environment but also in combating poverty and social exclusion.

3. Challenges and Responses

7. It is accepted that the principal barriers to sustainable urbanisation lie in the general lack ofplanning, implementation, and management capacities on the part of local governments and their localpartners. Overcoming these barriers, which have many dimensions, is a fundamental challenge ofsustainable urbanisation. This challenge, and appropriate responses, can usefully be considered under theheading of Good Governance, which includes: (a) democratisation of decision-making and enablingmeaningful participation of all local stakeholders including women and the urban poor; (b) municipalautonomy and empowerment, including an appropriate legal, regulatory and financial framework for localgovernment; (c) public sector reform, especially in changing from a supply-led to a demand-drivenapproach to public services; (d) effective decentralisation of authority and resources, both from nationaland regional government to local government, and within local government to sub-units and communities,and (e) vital role of local authorities and their local partners in making sustainable urbanisation a reality.

8. These challenges call for a variety of responses, but particularly capacity-development initiatives– of many different kinds – directed at the full range of local actors: local authorities, NGOs, communities,private sector, etc. More diverse and active forms of experience sharing, information exchange, andmutual learning are called for, including city-to-city and community-to-community co-operation in itsmany forms, as well as more effective access to and use of Best Practices information. Making citiesaware of - and responsive to - their wider environmental impacts, especially potentially adverse impactson surrounding rural regions, is another vital awareness-raising and capacity-building task. Equallyimportant is the development of institutions, procedures and capabilities for communities (especially thepoor) to become significant and active partners in local urbanisation.

9. A key challenge is to incorporate gender concerns and responsiveness into operational proceduresand actions at the local level. Women have played the leading role in many of the most successfulcommunity-level initiatives, especially in poor areas, and are in any case best placed to articulate their ownneeds and priorities.

10. Mobilisation of local resources - whether municipal, community and household, private sector,or other - was emphasised as a key challenge throughout the Dialogue. For instance, the ability of poorcommunities to generate sufficient own-resources to build and maintain local water and sewerage facilitieshas been well demonstrated in several innovative programmes, and the potential of the private sector formanagerial, financial and other resources is very much under-utilised. Adapting and up-scaling thiscommunity/private/own-resources approach provides an important basis for making progress toward thegoal of providing urban residents with adequate water and sanitation. Initiatives such as communitycontracting have also proved effective for mobilising local resources, building local skills and capacities,empowering local communities, and generating local jobs and income.

11. The challenge of integrating urban and rural, and of integrating physical-spatial, economic, socialand environmental aspects, calls for a pro-active approach to planning and managing sustainableurbanisation. Strategic planning mechanisms and skills need to be developed to meet this challenge, andto provide a participatory and integrated foundation for urban and regional management. Strategicplanning at the regional (sub-national) scale is a valuable tool for helping to ensure a balance in urban andrural development and coping with the absorption of rural-urban migration while maintaining a good

45

quality of life in both urban and rural areas.

12. In this respect policy-makers should accept that urbanisation is inevitable – and generallybeneficial – and focus on properly managing the process rather than attempting (unsuccessfully) to fightit.

13. Local responses to the challenges of sustainable urbanisation are also hampered by the lack ofcoherence and mutual support among the many international support programmes who have an importantrole to play. A more demand-led approach is called for, with the external agents working on a long-termbasis with local authorities and their partners in a more integrated manner.

4. Partnership Implementation Commitments

14. A key message throughout the entire dialogue series was partnership – the realisation that tosuccessfully plan, implement and manage the measures needed to achieve sustainable urbanisation, theconcerted efforts of a wide range of partners are needed, whether for economic development and povertyreduction, or for coping with the HIV/AIDS pandemic, or for better dealing with the city’s environmentalimpacts, or for providing public services. The various dialogue sessions also focused on identifying anddeveloping “partnership implementation commitments”, as concrete illustrations of how cities and theirpartners can forge ahead. The following proposals, currently under preparation, were reviewed andendorsed for further development as part of the WSSD preparatory process.

1. Millennium Cities Partnership: a coalition of cities and their international, regional andnational associations, UN-Habitat and the World Bank to mobilise and assist local authorities in designinglocal action plans for the realisation of the Millennium Declaration, especially the goal "to improve, by2020, the lives of 100 million slum dwellers".

2. Partnership for local capacity development (PLCD): to facilitate joint policy formationbetween leading international associations of local authorities, international support programmes, andfunding agencies on the basis of a systematic information service.

3. Local capacity building through urban environmental planning and management (EPM)demonstration/replication activities: strengthening the capacities of local authorities and their public,private and community partners for socially, economically and environmentally more sustainable urbandevelopment, in collaboration with UN-HABITAT, UNEP, ILO, UNDP and other internationalprogramme and support partners.

4. National capacities for upscaling EPM and Local Agenda 21 initiatives: building nationallythe capacities of local and national governments, associations of local authorities, and training institutionsto routinely integrate the lessons of experience from local demonstrations into national sustainableurbanisation and poverty alleviation policies, upscaling strategies, and associated legal frameworks.

5. Local Capacities for Global Agendas: development of global norms for sustainableurbanisation and related multilateral environmental agreements, together with strengthening of localcapacities for both contribution of local needs and experiences and local responses in terms of adaptationand implementation, in collaboration with thematic support programmes and the UNEP/GEF.

6. Training local authorities for sustainable urban development: a public-private traininginitiative based upon the needs being identified in a series of regional seminars organised by UNITAR andUN-HABITAT in conjunction with WACLAC and the private sector.

7. New model City-to-City co-operation (C2C) partnership agreements: an initiative byassociations of local authorities, selected municipalities and key NGOs, illustrating the range of possibleforms of decentralised co-operation for the systematic transfer of knowledge, expertise and technologyon a North-South and South-South basis.

46

8. Learning from Best Practices, good policies and enabling legislation: aimed at feeding thelessons from best practices into the capacity development of local authorities, supported by UN-HABITAT, research & training institutions and individual cities.

9. Water for Asian Cities; a public-private-NGO partnership programme for providing access towater and sanitation for the urban poor in Asian cities in collaboration with UNEP, the AsianDevelopment Bank, funding agencies and national governments.

10. Global campaign on water, sanitation and hygiene; innovative mechanisms for low-costwater and sanitation through local resource mobilisation, in collaboration with UN-HABITAT, the Waterand Sanitation Collaborative Council, and national and local governments.

47

Annex IV

OBJECTIVES OF AND ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE WORLD URBAN FORUM

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The World Urban Forum is being convened pursuant to operative paragraph 10 of resolution 18/5of the Commission on Human Settlements in which the Commission requested the Executive Director “topromote a merger of the Urban Environment Forum and the International Forum on Urban Poverty intoa new urban forum, with a view to strengthening the coordination of international support to theimplementation of the Habitat Agenda.” Subsequently, the United Nations General Assembly decided,in its resolution 56/206, that the Forum would be a “non-legislative technical forum in which experts canexchange views in the years when the Governing Council of the United Nations Human SettlementsProgramme does not meet.” At the same session, the General Assembly, in paragraph 7 of its resolution56/205, encouraged local authorities and other Habitat Agenda partners to participate, as appropriate, inthe World Urban Forum in its role as an advisory body to the Executive Director of UN-HABITAT.

II. OBJECTIVES OF THE WORLD URBAN FORUM

2. Building on the very valuable experience of the Urban Environment Forum and the InternationalForum on Urban Poverty, the unified World Urban Forum will have international cooperation in shelterand urban development as its substantive focus. Accordingly, the meetings of the World Urban Forumwill facilitate the exchange of experiences and the advancement of collective knowledge among cities andtheir development partners. The meetings of the World Urban Forum will also place strong emphasis onthe participation of Habitat Agenda partners and relevant international programmes, funds and agencies,thus ensuring their inclusion in the identification of new issues, the sharing of lessons learned and theexchange of best practices and good policies. Another function of the World Urban Forum will be thefurthering of cooperation and coordination among development agencies in the implementation of theHabitat Agenda, the Declaration on Cities and other Human Settlements in the New Millennium and theUnited Nations Millennium Declaration. The report of the World Urban Forum will be presented to theExecutive Director of UN-HABITAT for consideration and appropriate action, including transmittal tothe biennial sessions of the Governing Council of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme.

III. PARTICIPATION

3. Participation in the World Urban Forum will be open to representatives of national governments,local authorities and other Habitat Agenda partners. The latter include, inter alia, global parliamentarianson Habitat, non-governmental organizations, community-based organizations, human settlementprofessionals, research institutions and academies of science, the private, business and non-profit sectors,foundations, relevant United Nations organizations and other international agencies.

IV. WORKING ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE WORLD URBAN FORUM

4. A review of operative paragraph 10 of resolution 18/5 of the Commission on Human Settlements,of paragraph 3 of section I. B of General Assembly resolution 56/206, of paragraph 7 of GeneralAssembly resolution 56/205, and of the above-mentioned objectives and participation at the World UrbanForum indicates that the Forum is clearly not meant to be an intergovernmental meeting and,consequently, the use of rules of procedure such as those of the Governing Council of UN-HABITAT would be inappropriate. The use of those rules would limit the full and effective participationof the Habitat Agenda partners in the deliberations and recommendations of the Forum. Additionally,since both the Urban Environment Forum and the International Forum on Urban Poverty did not haveformal rules of procedure, the World Urban Forum does not need to have formal rules of procedure.Simple working arrangement would facilitate maximum participation of the Habitat Agenda partners inthe deliberations and recommendations of the Forum.

5. The working arrangements for the World Urban Forum draw from experience gained from theinnovative working arrangements that were used very effectively and successfully by the second

48

committee of the Habitat II Conference (Istanbul, Turkey, 3-14 June 1996) and subsequently revived forthe dialogues among governments, local authorities and other Habitat Agenda partners held during theseventeenth and eighteenth sessions of the Commission on Human Settlements (Nairobi, 5–14 May 1999and 5–9 February 2001, respectively) and also successfully used in the thematic committee of the specialsession of the General Assembly for an overall review and appraisal of the implementation of the outcomeof the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) (New York, 6–8 June 2001).

6. In essence, the main discussions of the Forum will be conducted in the form of dialogues amongall participants. Towards this end, selected panelists would introduce and make short substantivepresentations on specific issues followed by discussions among all participants on those specific issues.

7. At the end of each dialogue session, the Chair of each session, drawing from the deliberations,would prepare a summary of the main issues and observations raised during the presentations anddiscussions. These dialogue summaries should be as inclusive as possible. Once endorsed by the plenaryas an accurate reflection of what transpired in the dialogues, these dialogue summaries would be part ofthe report to be submitted by the Chair of the Forum to the Executive Director of UN-HABITAT forconsideration and appropriate action, including transmittal to the biennial sessions of the GoverningCouncil of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme.

V. WORKING GROUPS

8. For issues that require more analysis or in-depth discussions, the plenary would, as appropriate,establish working groups or subgroups to discuss those issues and then report back to the plenary.

VI. ADVISORY GROUP

9. Prior to each session, the Executive Director of UN-HABITAT will establish a multi-partneradvisory group that will advise and assist the Executive Director with the organization, management andconduct of the meetings of that particular session of the World Urban Forum. The Chair of the advisorygroup will also serve as the Chair of that session of the World Urban Forum.

VII. OTHER WORKING ARRANGEMENTS

Date and venue

10. The World Urban Forum will meet in the years when the Governing Council of UN-HABITATis not meeting and at a date and venue to be proposed by the secretariat in consultation with nationalgovernments, local authorities and other Habitat Agenda partners.

Provisional agenda

11. The provisional agenda for each session of the World Urban Forum will be prepared by thesecretariat in consultation with national governments, local authorities and other Habitat Agenda partners,at least six months in advance of the session.

Languages

12. English will be the language of the World Urban Forum. Other languages may be added, subjectto the availability of extrabudgetary resources for that purpose.

Secretariat

13. The United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) will serve as the convenorand secretariat of the World Urban Forum. It will organize the dialogue sessions in consultation withGovernments, local authorities and other Habitat Agenda partners, taking into account, as far aspracticable, the need for geographical, partner and gender balances. It will also be responsible for

49

supporting the Chair in the preparation of the report of each session. It may delegate the organization ofparticular dialogue sessions to specific partners.

Revision of the working arrangements

14. These working arrangements may be revised at any session of the World Urban Forum on thebasis of experience gathered at preceding sessions of the World Urban Forum.

50

Annex V

SUMMARIES OF STATEMENTS MADE AT THE OPENING SESSION

A. Opening remarks by the Chair, Hon. Sankie D. Mthembi-Mahanyele, Minister for Housing of theRepublic of South Africa and Chair of the First Session of the World Urban Forum

1. The Chair of the first session of the World Urban Forum, Ms. Sankie Mthembi-Mahanyele,Minister for Housing of the Republic of South Africa, welcomed participants to the meeting. She extendeda special welcome to the President of the Republic of Kenya, Mr. Daniel Toroitich arap Moi, whosepresence she described as a clear manifestation of the importance his Government attached to theimprovement of the living conditions of the people of Kenya.

2. She noted that the meeting had been organized in pursuance of resolution 18/5 of the Commissionon Human Settlements which requested the Executive Director of the United Nations Human SettlementsProgramme (UN-HABITAT) to “promote a merger of the Urban Environment Forum and the InternationalForum on Urban Poverty into a new urban forum, with a view to strengthening the coordination ofinternational support to the implementation of the Habitat Agenda.”

3. As an open-ended gathering of Governments and all Habitat Agenda partners, the Forum wasexpected to recommend solutions to current urbanization challenges, identify synergies amongdevelopment agencies and contribute, from the human settlements point of view, to the global debate onsustainable development. The current session of the Word Urban Forum would also serve as a pre-conference event to finalize inputs on Habitat issues for the World Summit on Sustainable Developmentto be held in Johannesburg in August 2002.

B. Statement by Mrs. Anna Kajumulo Tibaijuka Executive Director, UN-HABITAT

4. The Executive Director of UN-HABITAT, Mrs. Anna Kajumulo Tibaijuka welcomed participantsto the first session of the World Urban Forum. She expressed appreciation to the Governments of Sweden,Netherlands, Norway and France for providing financial support for this event while acknowledging allthe partners who had committed both time and resources to prepare parallel side events in support of thevarious dialogues.

5. Mrs. Tibaijuka described the World Urban Forum as a path-breaking global initiative aimed ataddressing the main challenge of this century – the transition to an urban world. She noted that countriesin Africa and Asia, in particular, faced an explosive demographic shift from rural to urban areas. Theissue of how to prepare cities, especially in Africa and Asia, to accommodate the inevitable pressure,would therefore have to feature prominently on the sustainable development agenda.

6. The growth of large cities in the developing world was accompanied by an upsurge in urbanpoverty. National and local authorities, however, were ill equipped to manage urban development infavour of the poor, who usually took up illegal residence on the periphery of the city. Without basicservices, secure tenure and formal employment opportunities, such settlements became slums of the mostappalling nature, offering their inhabitants little hope of improving their lives.

7. The Executive Director noted that between a quarter and a third of all urban households in theworld lived in absolute poverty. Vulnerable to a number of hazards, the urban poor were always at risk. They were exposed to a higher incidence of infectious diseases, arbitrary arrest and unlawful forcedeviction. Neglected by formal institutions, they were often left unprotected against violence, drug dealers,corrupt officials, unscrupulous slumlords and organized crime. For lack of alternatives many of thembecame drawn into such anti-social behaviour themselves.

8. She observed that the World Urban Forum could add value to the process triggered off at the

51

Millennium Summit through better articulation of an integrated and coordinated strategy to advance thecause and implementation of the Habitat Agenda. In that regard, the Executive Director proposed a two-pronged approach: to articulate effective strategies for taking preventive measures in favour of sustainableurbanization; and to couch effective adaptive strategies, programmes, policies and even concrete projectsto deal with present reality in most cities. She then outlined UN-HABITAT's strategy for sustainableurbanization, touching on both preventive and adaptive policies, strategies, programmes and projects.

9. In order to address such issues as decent housing, disaster preparedness, environmentally soundurban policies, etc., UN-HABITAT had adopted two instruments: a Global Campaign for Secure Tenureand a sister Global Campaign on Urban Governance as advocacy and capacity-building activities tocomplement the more practical operational activities.

10. The World Urban Forum offered an opportunity for a free and frank debate on issues at theforefront of the built-up or living environment, the brown agenda, and sustainable urbanization. It was alsothe place for generating innovative models of urban management, to test out new ideas and harnesscreative thought to make cities healthy, safe, productive, inclusive, equitable and democratic. It was, inaddition, an occasion to reflect on the linkages between the rural and urban areas. City developmentstrategies needed to be based on the conditions and potentials of their hinterlands. The Executive Directortherefore urged participants to pay special attention to this issue and give practical recommendations sincethe UN-HABITAT Governing Council would be devoted to this theme at its session in 2003.

11. The Executive Director noted that as a biennial event, the World Urban Forum would be held ininter-sessional years when the Governing Council of UN-HABITAT was not held. The World UrbanForum would complement, not replicate the work of the Governing Council. Its mandate was to make andforward substantive recommendations, through the UN-HABITAT Executive Director, to the GoverningCouncil.

12. She commended in this regard, the Committee of Permanent Representatives to UN-HABITAT,as the inter-sessional executive body of the Governing Council, for its substantive contributions to thepreparation of the present session.

13. It was expected that through the Chair’s report, the outcome and recommendations of the sessionson sustainable urbanization would be tabled to the preparatory process of the World Summit forSustainable Development, to be finalized in Bali, Indonesia early June.

14. By remaining focused on these challenges of urbanization, the World Urban Forum would evolveinto an effective venue for global civic engagement that would have a continuing impact on thedevelopment agenda of the United Nations.

C. Statement by Hon. Daniel Toroitich arap Moi, President of the Republic of Kenya

15. In his inaugural statement, President Daniel Toroitich arap Moi, welcomed all delegates to Kenyaand wished them a pleasant stay. He described the inauguration of this first session of the World UrbanForum as an eloquent testimony of the global community’s commitment to address the challengesconfronting the urban settlements. The Forum had come at a time when the world was experiencing anunprecedented level of urbanization. The urbanization process therefore posed enormous challengeswhich would no doubt require a collective effort.

16. He noted with satisfaction that part of the agenda of the Forum would be to address emergingurban challenges such as urban governance, shelter strategies, city-to-city cooperation and implementationof the Habitat agenda, among others. He was confident that the Forum would focus on developingrealistic strategies and programmes that could be implemented by Governments and other stakeholders,pointing out in addition that the implementation of the Habitat Agenda was crucial in the fight againstpoverty.

17. President Moi noted with regret that since the hosting of the Istanbul Conference of 1996, the stateof human settlements, particularly in developing countries, had continued to deteriorate. That situation

52

was most critical in the area of urban housing and yet at the Millenium Summit of September 2000, theissue of human settlements had been at the core of the discussion.

18. The provision of decent housing for people remained a challenge to Governments. At the Istanbulconference, for instance, participants had resolved to achieve a significant improvement in the lives of atleast 100 million slum dwellers by the year 2020. To achieve that target, it was necessary to develop newstrategies of funding the construction of cheap and affordable housing. Kenya appreciated the pledgetowards upgrading of slums in Nairobi under the Cities’ Alliance Initiative and encouraged developmentpartners to consider mobilizing more resources towards that particular endeavour.

19. President Moi’s Government was making deliberate efforts to resolve the problem of slums andinformal settlements. It was currently preparing a slum upgrading policy paper in addition to collaboratingwith the UN-HABITAT in a slum upgrading initiative for Nairobi. This joint initiative was particularlyimportant to Kenya as the host country for the United Nations Human Settlement Programme and also asa model to be replicated in other urban centres worldwide.

20. President Moi emphasized that the challenges of rapid urbanization would require effective andwell functioning local authorities. This called for a coherent policy in the governance and managementstructures of local authorities, particularly in the devolution of power and fiscal reforms. He wasconvinced that the new status under the leadership of the current Executive Director, would empower UN-HABITAT to deal more effectively with its broad mandate as a focal point within the United Nationssystem, for the implementation of the Habitat Agenda.

21. UN-HABITAT would require a predictable and sufficient flow of resources to enable it to fulfilits mandate. He therefore appealed not only for a significant increase in the regular budget provision forUN-HABITAT, but also for more non-earmarked contributions from member countries. He proposed thatsuch contributions should be directed into UN-HABITAT’S foundation fund. This would give it thedesired flexibility in carrying out a wider range of programmes.

22. In closing, he expressed optimism that the Forum would coherently address the challenges ofproviding sustainable human settlements. This would require stronger partnership especially in themobilization of financial resources to implement the agreed policies and programmes.

23. President Moi then declared the first session of the World Urban Forum open.

D. Statement by Ms. Louise Fréchette Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations

24. In her video message to the first session of the World Urban Forum Ms. Louise Fréchette, theDeputy Secretary-General of the United Nations hailed the meeting at Habitat headquarters as a major stepin the implementation of the Habitat Agenda adopted at Istanbul in June 1996. She noted that theMillennium Declaration set out a common vision for humankind and human development for the twenty-first century with cities – liveable, sustainable, inclusive and productive cities – figuring prominently inthat vision.

25. She described liveable cities as places where residents could find jobs that paid a living wage,and where the inhabitants enjoyed secure tenure in affordable housing, free from the risk of forcedeviction. A liveable city provided its citizens basic services such as water, sanitation and transportation. It also offered them access to education and health care, and ensured the safety of its streets.

26. Inclusive cities were governed through democratic practices. The States in which they werelocated recognized the importance of local authorities, and the need to allow public tasks to be carried outby those closest to the citizens. Inclusive cities allowed private companies, non-governmentalorganizations and other partners to play a full role not only in delivery but also in decision-making. Furthermore, inclusive cities made use of a woefully under-utilized resource: the many poor people livingin their midst, who were enormous wellsprings of talent, energy and initiative.

53

27. Ms. Fréchette observed that sustainable cities were places where the environment was cared forand clean. However, urban sustainability was not only an environmental issue. It also meant protectionof human rights, and action against injustice, violence and crime. She urged participants to seize theopportunity of the forthcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development to stress the central role thatcities played in assuring a sustainable future.

28. Liveable, inclusive and sustainable cities were productive cities. Many cities now had populationsand economies that exceeded those of small countries. Weak cities acted as a brake on nationaldevelopment. Strong cities enabled a country to thrive in the new global economy. That was one reasonwhy the Millennium Declaration had endorsed the “Cities without Slums” initiative, which aimed toimprove the living conditions of 100 million slum dwellers by 2020.

29. Ms. Fréchette noted in conclusion that the future of humanity lay in cities: in good urbangovernance and sustainable urban development. Rapid urbanization was one of the hallmarks of our timesso we need to ensure that it works for people, not against them.

E. Statement by Mr. Klaus Töpfer, Executive Director of UNEP

30.Mr. Donald Kaniaru, Director, Division of Environmental Policy Implementation at UNEP readout a statement on behalf of Mr. Klaus Töpfer, Executive Director of UNEP. In his statement Mr.Töpfer assured the meeting of UNEP’s full support for the World Urban Forum, and underlinedthat UNEP stood ready to cooperate with UN-HABITAT and to be fully involved in all areas ofcommon endeavour.

31.The urban revolution had presented the world with urgent and rapidly emerging problems. Theproblems of the average person in developing countries were trying to find decent housing, food,health care, clean drinking water, and wood or other energy source for cooking and heating. Inmany developing country cities, and especially megacities, significant numbers of people had noaccess to safe drinking water. Over half had no access to safe sanitation systems. Large areas ofthose cities were made up of low quality housing, sometimes on dangerous slopes prone tolandslides; close to polluting industries or hazardous waste dumps. All these developmentsunderscored the fact that the major environmental problems were, and would in the future befound, in our cities.

32.The Executive Director noted that the urban revolution forced the world to look at developmentin an integrated way. Problems such as upgrading slums, ensuring the provision of basic serviceslike water and waste collection, curbing urban air pollution and improving access to health carecould only be effectively addressed when economics were integrated with environment, health, andurban planning. There was only one scenario that would work and that scenario was sustainabledevelopment.

33.On the positive side, however, cities could act as a catalyst to develop new ideas andapproaches, as they present opportunities to address the emerging issues. The biggest challengelay in developing and supporting innovative, integrative, participatory approaches to addressingthe issues. Only with involvement of all stakeholders, including the private sector and civilsociety, could approaches successfully be developed and implemented. The Executive Directorsaid that UNEP and UN-HABITAT had been working closely together, for example through theSustainable Cities Programme, to implement both Agenda 21 and the Habitat Agenda, and tosupport cities in developing innovative and integrated approaches to sustainable urbandevelopment.

34.Mr. Töpfer drew the attention of the Forum to the decisions taken during the seventh specialsession of the UNEP Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum in Cartagena,Colombia in February. The Governments had called upon UNEP to be more closely involved atthe national and local levels, and thus strengthen its cooperation with UN-HABITAT at thoselevels, particularly, in developing a new urban environment policy, recognizing the need to support

54

sustainable development initiatives in cities.

35.It was crucial he said in conclusion that the issue of urbanization be part of the main focus ofthe World Summit on Sustainable Development to be held in Johannesburg in August andSeptember 2002. The Summit would fall short of expectations if the world did not look at thepractical, daily issues that obstructed sustainable development in the developing country cities orinclude cities in developing new plans and actions to implement them.

F. Statement by Mr. Joan Clos, Mayor of Barcelona and Chairman of theUnited Nations Advisory Committee of Local Authorities

36. Mr. Joan Clos commended the United Nations Commission on Human Settlements for itsinitiative to establish a new Urban Forum which would help tackle the urgent problems arising from thedifficult urban situation many people were facing today. The growing urban population was engenderingincreasingly uncontrollable and vulnerable settlements.

37. Noting that the gap between society and authorities as well as rich and poor was growing widerand that communities were feeling distanced from the decision-making process, he stressed the need fora decentralization of powers. This would also help deal with the negative effects of insecurity, exclusionand environmental degradation. Ten years after the Rio Conference and on the eve of the JohannesburgSummit, it was important to share experiences with respect to local solutions to problems andenhancement of the powers of local authorities.

38. Mr. Clos extended an invitation to all participants to the second session of the World UrbanForum which would be held in Barcelona in September 2004 and also announced that a single world bodyof local authorities would be set up that year. He welcomed city-to-city cooperation as an indispensablemeans of exchanging information on best practices and emphasized the role local authorities had to playin educating and training people in the culture of sustainability.

39. In order to combat poverty and promote sustainable development, it was necessary to ensurecertain conditions such as decentralized democracy, good governance and the rule of law. It was alsoincumbent upon all stakeholders to mobilize the political and economic instruments necessary forfulfilling the aspirations of all communities. The local communities were not the problem but rather partof the solution to the problem.

G. Statement by Mr. John W. Flora, Director, Transport and Urban Development, World Bank

40. In his statement, Mr. Flora observed that the challenge facing the world was to enable sustainabledevelopment for the almost three billion poor people and for the two billion new residents that would beadded to the global population in the next 50 years – and to do so in a way that guarded the world’sprecious environmental and social assets more securely than in the past.

41. The Millennium target of “improving the lives of 100 million slum dwellers by 2020” was areminder that now, in many cities in the world, a third, and in some cases as much as half, of the residentslived in informal settlements, exposed every day to health and security hazards and often at risk ofsummary eviction from their homes. As part of the international response to such issues, the World Bankwas preparing its annual World Development Report focusing in 2002 on sustainable development. Urbanissues figured prominently in that review that would help inform discussions over the next few days andguide actions in preparation for the Johannesburg Summit in August.

42. According to that Report, the world cannot sustain its current patterns of growth, and even if thesetrends were sustainable, they would not be sufficient to achieve the increased productivity that was neededto reduce existing poverty. Furthermore, when talking about improving well-being, it was necessary to

55

think about managing an entire portfolio of assets – not just physical, financial, and human assets, but alsoknowledge and environmental assets. Environmental and social assets were the most difficult to secure.The World Development Report also underscored the need for institutions that were accountable,representative and transparent.

43. In many cases, Mr. Flora said, external factors provided the essential preconditions for the growthof institutions. Democratization and fiscal decentralization had conferred local authorities greaterauthority and legitimacy. Institutions performed best where they helped address the underlyinginequalities within cities by giving voice to, and inviting participation from, all citizens – particularly thepoor and disenfranchised. Stakeholder networks – such as slum-dwellers associations – were alsoimportant supports connecting poor communities to local governments and practitioners so that knowledgeand capacity could be strengthened. International organizations such as the World Bank supported theseinitiatives and in so doing, recognized that building strong local governments and institutions was a long-term commitment.

H. Statement by Mr. Arputham Jockin, President of the NationalSlum Dwellers Federation of India

44. Mr. Jockin noted that for many years there had been considerable discussion of urban problemsbut without the participation of slum dwellers and therefore hailed the World Urban Forum as a welcomeopportunity to strike up a new partnership between local authorities and slum dwellers. Although slumdwellers had always been on the receiving end, they were now proud to be sitting at the table as equalpartners. He observed that one could not meaningfully discuss such issues as decent housing, securetenure, "cities without slums" without the participation of slum dwellers.

45. Mr. Jockin reported on housing projects that had been completed in various countries around theworld. He noted, however, that sometimes donor aid caused the destruction of slums by supportingbulldozer led clean-up operations. He informed the meeting that slum dwellers were ready to cooperatewith governments and local authorities to map out a common strategy within a new partnership.

I. Statement by H.E. Mr. Germán García-Durán, Permanent representative of Colombia toUN-HABITAT and Chairman of the Group of 77 (Nairobi Chapter)

46. Speaking on behalf of the Group of 77, Nairobi Chapter, Mr. Germán García-Durán expressedappreciation at the fact that the first session of the World Urban Forum was taking place in a developingcountry. The Group of 77 welcomed the launching by UN-HABITAT, in collaboration with nationalgovernments, local authorities, and other Habitat partners, of the two campaigns on security of tenure andurban governance in a number of developing countries, with the objective of achieving the initial twin-goals of the Habitat Agenda - adequate shelter for all and sustainable human settlements development inan urbanizing world.

47. The Group was disheartened to note the increasing urbanization of poverty accompanied by othersocio-economic problems culminating in cities being divided into haves and have-nots, the establishedand the marginalized, offering disparate opportunities for men and women. The developing world wasfaced with a tide that was difficult to stem and, unfortunately, also difficult to respond to in a well-formulated and pro-active manner. In the view of the Group, best practices were prime indicators ofadequately functioning human settlements, while adequate urban governance, security of tenure and slumupgrading at the local and national levels were prerequisites to the realization of sustainable cities. However, access to funding that did not further augment the debt burden of developing countriesconstituted the backbone to bring such an exercise to fruition.

48. Mr. García-Durán noted that the HIV/AIDS pandemic was one aspect of immeasurablecatastrophic consequences to the developing countries. It was deeply affecting the overall fabric of

56

societies. Unless serious and sustained efforts were made at international level, many countries would beleft with an imbalanced society. Mr. Garcia-Duran concluded by pointing out that to apply a symmetricview and balanced action, all related concepts in the field of human settlements must be addressedcomprehensively in a functional package.

J. Statement by H.E. Mr. Luis F. Garcia Cerezo, Permanent Representative of Spainto UN-HABITAT on behalf of the European Union

49. Speaking on behalf of the European Union, Mr. Garcia Cerezo welcomed the decision by theUnited Nations Commission on Human Settlements through its resolution 18/5, paragraph 10, to mergethe Urban Environment Forum and the International Forum on Urban Poverty into a new Urban Forum.He was confident that the active participation of experts from European Union member countries and theEuropean Commission would make a valuable contribution to the discussion of the wide range of subjectson the agenda.

50. He noted the presence of experts from many countries around the world and praised the innovativeformat of the Forum which he described as its greatest asset. The Forum, he said, was an important step,particularly in relation to the preparation of a report for the preparatory committee of the World Summiton Sustainable Development.

57

Annex VI

SUMMARY OF STATEMENTS MADE AT THE CLOSING SESSION

A. Statement by Mr. Sören Häggroth State Secretary for Housing and Deputy Minister of Finance of Sweden and Co-Chair of the first session of the World Urban Forum

1. The Co-Chair, Mr. Sören Häggroth, said that the main focus of the work done in Dialogue II wasthe World Summit on Sustainable Development, with sustainable urbanization as the overall theme. Theconclusions of the Dialogue had been circulated in document HSP/WUF/1/L.3/Add.6. The mostfundamental issues in sustainable urbanization were poverty alleviation, gender balance and goodgovernance. The Dialogue had addressed three main objectives: to reaffirm a common understanding ofthe concept of sustainable development, to review the key challenges and appropriate responses and todevelop specific “partnership implementation commitments”.

2. He stressed that sustainable urbanization was a multi-dimensional process, that necessarilyembraced environmental, social, economic and political-institutional sustainability; it accepted the realityof urban growth and concentrated on effective management of the process. Given that good governancewas fundamental, it was generally accepted that the principal practical barriers to sustainable urbanizationlay in the general lack of planning, implementation and management capacities of local governments andtheir partners. Key challenges were the incorporation of gender concerns and responsiveness intooperational procedures, and the mobilization of local resources, whether municipal, community andhousehold, private sector or other. Several innovative programmes had been described, whichdemonstrated the ability of poor communities to generate resources and build and maintain local waterand sewerage facilities.

3. A key message throughout the Dialogue had been partnership: the realization that to achievesustainable urbanization, the concerted efforts of a wide range of partners were needed. Partnerships werealso essential at the level of international cooperation, and a number of specific “partnershipimplementation commitments” had been reviewed and endorsed. Many of these focused on strengtheningthe capacities of local authorities and their partners, including training, city-to-city cooperation anddemonstration-replication.

4. Lastly he highlighted two general considerations, namely that the partnerships outlined werethemselves rooted in the institutional partnership already established between UN-HABITAT andlocal authorities and other stakeholders, and, that the richness of the debates held during the meetingowed a great deal to the relaxed and open working arrangements of the World Urban Forum, in whichall had equal rights of participation. He hoped that the aims set out would contribute to a better futurefor urban populations everywhere.

B. Statement by H.E. Mrs. Sankie D. Mthembi-Mahanyele, Minister for Housing of the Republic ofSouth Africa and Chair of the first session of the World Urban Forum

5. In her statement at the closing session, the Chair, Mrs. Sankie D. Mthembi-Mahanyele describedthe first World Urban Forum as a success. The open-ended gathering of Governments at all levels andorganizations of civil society had already, at its first session, demonstrated its capacity to be a globalmarketplace of collecting and exchanging views on the future of cities and other human settlements, andon their role in sustainable development.

6. The Forum was expected to make a major contribution on advising on the best ways to meet thetargets set by world leaders at the Millennium Summit of improving the lives of at least 100 million slumdwellers by the year 2020. At this first session, the Urban Forum had pronounced itself very clearly onseveral principles including: the concept of the “right to the city” and its essential element of citizenshipand the fact that forced evictions are detrimental to the goals of cities without slums and must thereforestop.

58

7. With regard to the international debate on sustainable development, the dialogues at this firstWorld Urban Forum had fully endorsed the vision of inclusive cities and habitable human settlementsmaking important contributions towards sustainable development at the local level. The conclusions fromthe dialogues on sustainable urbanization were expected to be significant inputs to the debates onsustainable development at the forthcoming World Summit for Sustainable Development. The Chairnoted in this context, that the challenges to the role of human settlements in sustainable development werequite poignant in the African context. It would be important for African countries, therefore, to developmodels of urbanization which acknowledge the peculiar African context and the close linkages betweenurban and rural development in African countries.

8. She also observed that the theme of the World Summit for Sustainable Development was “People,the Planet and Prosperity”, and its overall aim was to strengthen, at the highest political level, the globalcommitment by Governments and their civil society partners towards the goals of sustainabledevelopment, as they had been pronounced in Agenda 21. She suggested to include specific initiatives onthe reduction of urban poverty and the promotion of sustainable human settlements development in theProgramme of Action to be adopted by WSSD. She stressed that it was critical that issues relating tosustainable human settlements should form part of the agenda of the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment and urged all Government representatives to ensure that the substantive issues of this Forumwere incorporated in the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

9. In that regard, she announced that South Africa and UN-HABITAT would jointly organize around table on sustainable human settlements in Africa as a parallel event at the World Summit onSustainable Development. In conclusion, Mrs. Sankie D. Mthembi-Mahanyele expressed appreciationto the Executive Director of UN-HABITAT Mrs. Anna Tibaijuka and her staff, and the Government ofKenya for the excellent arrangements and warm hospitality which had made the meeting possible, as wellas all the Habitat Agenda partners for their contribution.

C. Statement by Mrs. Anna Kajumulo Tibaijuka, Executive Director, UN-HABITAT

10. The Executive Director of UN-HABITAT, Ms. Anna Tibaijuka, concluded the first World UrbanForum by thanking the Advisory Group, the participants, the media representatives and the staff, andexpressed her pride that together a giant step had been taken toward a path-breaking model of global civicengagement. The large number of participants, more than 1100, was a clear confirmation of a demand byHabitat Partners to participate in the elaboration of shelter and urban policy at the global and local levels. Empowerment had been the focus of the first World Urban Forum, confirmed as the key to sustainabledevelopment. Through the work in the many dialogues, the proposition had not been limited just to theempowerment of people with respect to local decision-making but also extended to the empowerment oflocal authorities with respect to the state. Through dialogue and debate the need had been expressed fornational urban policies that act in concert on such issues as devolving authority to municipalities, buildinglocal capacity, fighting HIV/AIDS, ensuring secure tenure, overcoming gender inequalities andencouraging integrated urban and rural development. The Habitat Agenda documented the frighteningreality of the first half of the twenty-first century as concerned urbanization and human settlements; areality that three-quarters of a billion slum dwellers now live in absolute poverty, that almost half-a-billionpeople will be added to the cities of Asia and Africa in the next ten years, that by 2050 there will be 3billion more people in the world than there there is now, and that most of these will be living in the slumsof developing countries. The Executive Director found that these numbers are far beyond the ability ofgovernments of developing countries to control and that in this context, the goal of the MillenniumDeclaration to improve the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers by 2020, is in fact modest.

11. An enabling strategy to create the conditions for full mobilization of resources, for the generation andexchange of practical information - person-to-person and city-to-city, for women and men to exercise theirindividual rights and responsibilities, for organizations to interact, to network and to build partnerships,thus, is paramount. There is a need for enabling all citizens to unlock doors and release human energy inorder to work together on solutions to common problems. The wisdom of this approach had beenconfirmed repeatedly by the lively debate, and pertinent lessons heard during the week from the grassrootslevel to the governments. The World Urban Forum had been designed for discussion of concerns and the

59

forming of new partnerships. The results of the discussions will guide UN-HABITAT and nationalgovernments in the near future. The next World Urban Forum, to be held in Barcelona in 2004, will alsobuild on this experience.

12. Since the World Urban Forum fundamentally is meant to provide advice to the Executive Directorof UN-HABITAT, who may then advise the Governing Council and ECOSOC on issues of priorityimportance, the direct recipients of the recommendations from this World Urban Forum are besides UN-HABITAT itself, all national governments. The Executive Director expressed her gratitude to theCommittee of Permanent Representatives in Nairobi which has provided valuable guidance and supportto the work of UN-HABITAT in preparing for the range of dialogues held during these last five days, andshe expressed her hope that their active participation in the Forum itself will facilitate the discussion ofthe Executive Director’s report at the next meeting of the Governing Council. In this regard, the ExecutiveDirector thanked Government participants, particularly Ministers and other very senior officials who hadattended. The Forum will have little impact if governments and other actors do not make use of theGoverning Council to discuss what has transpired and to mainstream appropriate recommendations intothe official decision making system.

13. At the last session of the Human Settlements Commission, where UN-HABITAT was given thetask of organizing this Forum, it was stated that UN-HABITAT was on the right road towards playing amore significant role within the United Nations system. The vibrancy of discussion during the Forumsuggests that UN-HABITAT is also on the right programmatic track. She reassured that UN-HABITATwill be revisiting the proceedings of the World Urban Forum as a priority technical resource in order tomake UN-HABITAT’s campaigns, global programmes and technical cooperation activities even moreresponsive to the voices of the Habitat Partners. In this regard, the Executive Director would be workingclosely with the Committee of Permanent Representatives in order to deliver the messages andrecommendations most effectively to the Governing Council for consideration and action.

14. In concluding, the Executive Director expressed her expectation that the UN-HABITAT partnerswill use the outcome of the dialogues to strengthen their resolve and to develop new approaches in theirrespective areas in order to achieve the high ideals of the Habitat Agenda. An evaluation form will shortlybe circulated by UN-HABITAT to collect suggestions which could be incorporated into the report to besubmitted to the Governing Council.

60

Annex VII

LIST OF PAPERS BEFORE THE FIRST SESSION OF THE WORLD URBAN FORUM

AgendaItem

Symbol Title

Information brochure on the first session of theWorld Urban Forum.

2 HSP/WUF/1/ORG/Paper 1 Provisional agenda for the first session of theWorld Urban Forum

2 HSP/WUF/1/ORG/Paper 1/Add.1 Annotations to the provisional agenda: note bythe secretariat

3 HSP/WUF/1/ORG/Paper 2 Working arrangements for the World UrbanForum: note by the secretariat

4 HSP/WUF/1/DLG.II/Paper 1 Preparations for the World Summit onSustainable Development: The sustainability ofcities

4 HSP/WUF/1/DLG.II/Paper 2 Preparations for the World Summit onSustainable Development: The role of cities innational and international development

4 HSP/WUF/1/DLG.II/Paper 3 The rural dimension of sustainable urbandevelopment (draft theme paper for theGoverning Council at its nineteenth session)

4 HSP/WUF/1/DLG.II/Paper 4 The management of the HIV/AIDS pandemic atthe local level

5 HSP/WUF/1/DLG.I/Paper 1 Role of local authorities and other HabitatAgenda partners: Dialogue on effectivedecentralization, including principles and legalframeworks in support of the implementation ofthe Habitat Agenda

5 HSP/WUF/1/DLG.I/Paper 2 Role of local authorities and other HabitatAgenda partners: City-to-city cooperation,transfers and international exchanges based ondocumented best practices, good policies andaction plans

5 HSP/WUF/1/DLG.I/Paper 2/Add.1 Guidelines for documenting urban policies andenabling legislation

5 HSP/WUF/1/DLG.I/Paper 3 International role of non-governmentalorganizations in the implementation of theHabitat Agenda

6 HSP/WUF/1/DLG.I/Paper 4 Cities without slums

6 HSP/WUF/1/DLG.I/Paper 5 Urban development and shelter strategies

61

AgendaItem

Symbol Title

favouring the poor (draft theme paper for theGoverning Council at its nineteenth session)

7 HSP/WUF/1/DLG.I/Paper 6 The Global Campaign for Secure Tenure:Progress report of the Executive Director

7 HSP/WUF/1/DLG.I/Paper 7 The Global Campaign on Urban Governance:Progress report of the Executive Director

8 HSP/WUF/1/DLG.I/Paper 8 Preparations for the Global Report on HumanSettlements 2003 and the State of the World’sCities 2004 Report

8 HSP/WUF/1/DLG.I/Paper 9 Monitoring urban conditions and trends

9 HSP/WUF/1/ORG/Paper 3 Provisional agenda and other arrangements forthe second session of the World Urban Forum, tobe issued six months before the session

INFORMATION PAPERS

HSP/WUF/1/INF/1 List of papers before the World Urban Forum

HSP/WUF/1/INF/2 Report of the United Nations Commission onHuman Settlements at its eighteenth session

HSP/WUF/1/INF/3 Report of the Executive Director ofUNCHS (Habitat) on the review and appraisal ofprogress made in the implementation of theHabitat Agenda

HSP/WUF/1/INF/4 Report of the special session of the GeneralAssembly for an overall review and appraisal ofthe implementation of the Habitat Agenda

HSP/WUF/1/INF/5 Relevant resolutions of the United NationsGeneral Assembly at its fifty-sixth session

HSP/WUF/1/INF/6 The State of the World’s Cities 2001

HSP/WUF/1/INF/7 Cities in a Globalizing World: Global Report onHuman Settlements 2001

HSP/WUF/1/INF/8 Reporting format for documenting urban policiesand enabling legislation

HSP/WUF/1/INF/9 Schedule of parallel events during the firstsession of the World Urban Forum

HSP/WUF/1/INF/10 Tentative list of panelists during the first sessionof the World Urban Forum, 29 April-3 May 2002

HSP/WUF/1/INF/11 Provisional list of participants to the first sessionof the World Urban Forum

62

Note: Information on the documentation and other organizational aspects of the World Urban Forumcan also be accessed via the UN-HABITAT Web site at the following address:http://www.unhabitat.org/uf.

-----

http://www.un-habitat.org/uf

Documents

REPORT OF THE FIRST SESSION OF THE WORLD URBAN … · REPORT OF THE FIRST SESSION OF THE WORLD URBAN ... Transport and Urban Development, ... The first session of the World Urban